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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This what happens when you lose control of the publication syndicate – those emails continue to bear fruit.
John Kehr — I’ve done a similar analysis using more recent satellite data, as well as the various versions of Church and White tide gauge derived GMSL. Depending upon the dataset and the period of analysis chosen, the projected 2100 sea levels varied over a wide range. Quadratic fits (with acceleration terms) are very sensitive to small changes in the data.
Using the entire satellite record my calculations show -0.048mm/yr/yr.; peak sea level in 2069, at a global mean sea level 85mm above present sea level.
2100 sea level will be 61mm (6.1cm, or less than 2-1/2 inches) above present sea level.
Linear extrapolation for the entire satellite record is 295mm rise by 2100.
I was posting the comparisons on a Accuweather climate change blogpost about GRACE measurements and accelerated ice melt. So I used the same 2002 start point as some of the ice measurements. 2002 to present satellite records of GMSL have deceleration such that peak sea level would be reached in 2047 at 49mm above present levels, and 2100 would be 54mm below today’s levels.
I also used 90 years of tide gauge record to extrapolate 90 years into the future. The quadratic fit to 1919 to 2009, extrapolated to 2100 projects a GMSL in 2100 that is 214mm above todays level. The linear extrapolation from 1919-2009 is for GMSL in 2100 to be 160mm higher than present.
As can be seen above, between different data sources and different period over which to calculate the trend, and whether the trend fitting is linear or quadratic results in a wide range of global mean sea level predictions.
In particular the quadratic fits are very sensitive to data changes. We should remember that when looking at papers that do a quadratic fit to the GRACE ice mass loss measurements, and then project huge sea level increases from an ever increasing ice melt.
Tom Harley says: March 28, 2011 at 3:31 am About sea level acceleration in Broome,
Here is the official Bureau of Meteorology temperature record for 40 years at Broome, with a tiny amount infilling by me to make Excel graphing easier. There is no sinister or fashionable end deletion on the graphs – I simply started the graph in 1968 because that was 2 years after decimal units came to Australia, and it finishes when I graphed it at the end of 2008.
The picture seems to be rather flat, n’est-ce pas?
Sometimes I wonder why a graph like this does not falsify global warming.
http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii14/sherro_2008/2010/Broome.jpg
BTW, I am not hypothesising that local sea level acceleration is related predictably or usefully to adjacent temperature level. I’m simply pointing to coincidences, an accumulation of which can lead to incorrect conclusions in the minds of people lacking hard data.
However, for the naval paper here, I’d be reasonably sure that there would have been thermometers at each tide gauge station. I wonder how they would compare with the HadCRU, NOAA, GISS etc temperature records?
Is this an Asymptotic sea level rise as mentioned in this WUWT post last year:
Asymptoting Sea Level Rise
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/10/asymptoting-sea-level-rise/
RandomReal[] says:
Rob Z:
Random, ever heard of the southern hemisphere?
[RandomReal] True, true. My follow-up is if it is winter in the US what season is it in NZ or Australia. IIRC closest approach of Earth to Sun was 3 January. But you know what they say about broken clocks 😉
You’re giving up too easily. Just because the earth is nearer to the sun in the SH summer doesn’t mean that’s why the summer is warmer than the winter. Rob Z. is the one that ought to be worrying about correlation and causation.
Have you people stopped to consider that perhaps this is all because President Obama waived his magical wand or something?
Jun 3, 2008 … [i]”This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal!!!”[/i]
it must be: the acceleration is an increase in the rate of decreasing temps
and deceleration is a decrease in the rate of decreasing temps?
maybe they just keep us confused
I’m sure many of you have seen this before, but whenever the subject of sea level arises I point people to this picture which puts the whole issue in perspective: http://www.jpattitude.com/TasmaniaSeaLevel1.htm
LOD is better than any global sea level study, and it has decreased 2ms in the last 40 years, which suggests not only decelerating of sea level increase, but actual decrease of sea level–at least the effect of rebound has overtaken any effect of current melting, strongly suggesting we are seeing the effects of the end of the LIA. The southern amplification of seasonal sea level variation is caused by the annual drift northward of the lithosphere’s center of gravity due to all the winter snow. Likewise melting of Antarctic ice would cause an increase in northern sea level and a decrease in the south as the center of gravity moves northward. But is any such effect detected?
As for the poster who suggested LOD should make the equator bulge, he has the cause and effect backwards: the shape of the earth determines LOD, not the reverse. The effect of diminishing groundwater, terminal lakes, artificial lakes, etc., is miniscule, but the falling Caspian and depleted groundwater overwhelm the effect of dams, slightly increasing sea level. As for its effect on LOD of course, the latitude of each body of water must be taken into account and compared with the average moment of inertia of the ocean surface–63 degrees as I recall. Snow in the northern hemisphere has little effect on seasonal LOD since so much of it falls so far south of that 63 degree average. But it does affect northern and southern sea level differently.
From learning of sea levels rises not accelerating, to Kilamanjaros’ returning snow cap to record cold and snow throughout the northern hemisphere, to Steve McIntyre’s further debunking of the hockey stick illusion, can we now just honestly admit out loud that AGW climate theory has to be one of the greatest failures and embarrassments of the modern scientific establishment? This is not rocket science, for sure.
I haven’t seen anyone commenting on the IPCC’s AR4. Check Figure 5.13 on p410 of Working Group 1. It shows Church’s analysis of the tide gauge data, using principle component analysis (Where have I heard that phrase before?) with a marked acceleration from ~1920. The actual graph is updated from Church & White 2006 – which raises two questions:
1. Isn’t 2006 a bit late to have made it into AR4?
2. How do you peer review an update? Aren’t all IPCC’s reports supposed to be based on peer review.
Could it have anything to do with the fact that Church was one of the contributing authors?
Sorry – I should have referenced http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch5s5-5-2.html. There it is in all its glory.
The paper by Houston has no new data in it. The same tide gauge data has been analyzed before. What is new here, is the analysis. Figures are given for the average acceleration since about 1930. This neglects the fact that the average acceleration is a misleading measure of the history of ocean height since that date.
The following paper, by Church, not referenced by Houston, shows how the rate of rise has changed during the 20th century.
http://academics.eckerd.edu/instructor/hastindw/MS1410-001_FA08/handouts/2008SLRSustain.pdf
Look at figure 3B which tracks the rate of increase in ocean height over a running 20 year period on a year to year basis. During the time when
I see perception bias is rife, as always.
The paper by Houston has no new data in it. The same tide gauge data has been analyzed before. What is new here, is the analysis. Figures are given for the average acceleration since about 1930. This neglects the fact that the average acceleration is a misleading measure of the history of ocean height since that date.
The following paper, by Church, not referenced by Houston, shows how the rate of rise has changed during the 20th century.
http://academics.eckerd.edu/instructor/hastindw/MS1410-001_FA08/handouts/2008SLRSustain.pdf
Look at figure 3B which tracks the rate of increase in ocean height over a centerd running 20 year period on a year to year basis. The rate of rise accelerated between 1920 and 1950, then reduced when industrial aerosals reduced global warming, and then accelerated again through the mid 1990’s when the data ends.
Figure 3A, which shows the ocean height as a function of year, shows the effect of volcanic eruptions and El Nino’s as well as the halting of global warming by industrial emissions of aerosals in the 1950’s until the late 1970’s. It also shows how choosing an initial year as 1930 can make the tide guage data show a negative average acceleration. It seems to be a case of cherry picking.
Rather than a bombshell, when the data is examined more closely, the Houston paper is a dud.
What this shows is that an 70 year average accelerations obscures what is happening to influence the rate of rise of the oceans.
I sent this post to Alan Burke who runs a pro-AGW site. He sent off an email to Neil White and John Church, this is their reply:
Dear Alan
Comments on Houston and Dean, Journal of Coastal Research.
This paper takes a somewhat limited view of sea-level change. Mostly, the analysis seems reasonable, as far as it goes and would appear to agree with Church and White (2006, 2011).
They start off by implying changes in the rate of sea level change can be used to infer future rates of sea level change, but provide no evidence to support this assertion.
They then say Church and White (2006) have an approximately linear rise since 1930 and therefore we will analyse data since 1930. They find a small negative acceleration for a number of gauges since 1930 and in the Church and White GMSL estimates. This would also be consistent with the deceleration around 1960 reported in Woodworth et al. (2009). I suspect the deceleration in Church and White (2006) since 1930 is not significant. We have no real reasons to doubt these limited results.
They seem to dispute the satellite altimeter record and dismiss its implications. However, there is no real basis for this. Their statement about the tide gauges being used to correct the altimeter data is incorrect. They are used to monitor it, but not to correct it.
They confuse the various issues surrounding terrestrial water storage. The climate related phenomena discussed by Llovel et al. (2010) and Ngo-Duc et al. (2005) have little impact on long term changes in sea level but rather have some (relative small decadal variability). However, this is not true for the terrestrial storage from dam building and the probably smaller and counteracting (with a different time profile) affect of aquifer depletion.
They also ignore our (limited) understanding of the reasons for sea-level change and its acceleration, the impact of volcanic eruptions and of course all of the paleo evidence which indicates an acceleration in the rate of rise from roughly 1850 to 1920 (Gerhels 2010).
I agree with their final conclusion that we do not understand all of the issues and that we need to understand the sea-level accelerations better.
Neil White and John Church
Jimbo et al.;
Only a fraction of water consumed by humans or other animals is urinated later. The rest is exhaled. Try breathing on a cool mirror, and you’ll detect the effect!
John Marshall says:
March 28, 2011 at 3:58 am
Good paper and downloaded and printed. Thanks Anthony.
Poor paper using a terrible methodology, shouldn’t be published.
These scientists will get no more money because their research throws the proverbial spanner into the AGW works.
Since they’re retired it’s only their reputations that will suffer.
Cementafriend says:
March 28, 2011 at 4:00 am
A great paper by Engineers who know what they are doing. Unlike some of the pseudo-climate scientists they discuss outliers and errors.
It is another falsification of the models.
Judging by this paper they don’t know what they’re doing, I would have thought that a ‘model-phobe’ would have seen through it instantly, assuming a quadratic model for sea level rise and reporting the quadratic coefficient as the rate of acceleration is a really poor method! GIGO I’m afraid.
Jer0me says:
March 28, 2011 at 5:30 am
pwl says:
March 28, 2011 at 4:33 am
Allegedly due to the recent 9.0 Japan Quake much of the coast affected not just moved up to 8ft – 12ft sideways towards the USA
I find that report hilarious. 8 to 12 feet toward the USA? How about how far away from Australia? Or Timbuktu?
There is a perfectly acceptable and usable metric that works wherever you happen to be, and it is in common usage: North, South, East and West!
Seems reasonable, it is on the North American plate after all.
Like I said, Chao, Yu & Li (2008) had it about right: sea level rise for the last 80 years or more was linear, with a slope of 2.46 mm per year.
To: SØREN BUNDGAARD
Is there any information on whether Denmark is rising?
IanM
almost 7 billion people, each person contains about 60% water… just saying =)
Average mass of human say 60kg. So 252m cubic meters, say a quarter of a cubic kilometere in total. Sea volume 1.3 billion cubic kilometers . .just sayin’.