Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
A reader who posts under the name “tokyoboy” sent a link to a very interesting sea level record from the Japanese Meteorological Agency. It covers the period 1906–2010, and when I first saw it I thought they’d made some mistake.
So I got their data, and plotted it up. I also got the satellite records for the area. Finally, I got records of one of the sites that the Japanese used, but I obtained it from the PSMSL records. All of them agree very well, so I am forced to assume that there are no obvious errors in the Japanese records. Figure 1 shows the results:
Figure 1. Japanese sea level records. Two records marked “Japan” are from the citation above. They are averages of long-term records since 1906 (4 sites, blue line), and shorter-term records since 1960 (16 sites, red line). Satellite records (green, 1993-2010) are from the University of Colorado interactive wizard. Wajima records (purple, 1930-2010) are from the PSMSL.
You can see why I thought there was a mistake. Sea level around Japan rose steadily from 1906 to 1950. Then it dropped for fifteen years and bounced around until 1980. Since then it has risen again, but it is about 20 mm lower than it was in 1950.
Now, I can’t find anything at all wrong with the data. The satellite record agrees with the Japanese averages, as does the PSMSL record. So we have to assume it is accurate.
But it is unlike any record I’ve seen of the global average change in sea level. That global record climbs steadily over the century.
I’m happy for suggestions and comments, as I’m in mystery over this one. It’s one of the great things about the climate, always more puzzles to solve.
w.
That’s my guess. Sea level measurements from a source such as this has already had the necessary adjustments, so start by considering the graph may be right. The PDO shows that there are significant multidecadal changes in the Pacific. Ocean currents are wind-driven, and Japan is surrounded by currents from the north and south. Changes in global or local wind patterns can pile up water, or draw it away.
The BA charts for the remote Pacific, drawn by the likes of Cook, Vancouver, Bligh, and Flinders remain accurate 200+ years later. They have a GPS correction noted in the datum, but no “sea level rise” adjustment.
These are the single most accurate record of global sea levels. Thousands if not millions of lives depend on them each year. So why no correction for sea level rise, if it is truly happening?
Pamela’s right.
There are only (apparently) four stations in Japan with long-term tidal records that pre-date 1960. If any of these stations lies in (or near) the coastal areas of SW Japan that coseismically uplifted* in the Tonankai (1944) and Nankaido (1946) earthquakes, the sudden drop in mean sea level in the late 1940’s is easily explained. These areas have been undergoing interseismic deformation since then, and that has likely also been imprinted on the MSL record.
Moral: Don’t generalize about MSL tendencies from tectonically active areas.
*Burbank, D.W. and Anderson, R.S. 2001. “Tectonic Geomorphology” (Wiley) is probably the most widely available source that shows the deformation pattern (see Fig. 5.11)
All this conjecture when the answer is obvious, Japan floats.
When people get off or on, it goes up and down.
Just like Guam. Except it’s too big to tip over.
Just ask Congressman Hank Johnson. He’ll tell you.
😉
Willis,
I think you could make a case for sea level changes due to the conservation of angular momentum. Large masses of water moving north to south, south to north and every where in between, are going to pile up in some cases and thin down in others.
Mystery solved.
For the past 10 years, most sites in Japan appear to have been sibsiding:
http://mekira.gsi.go.jp/project/f3_10_5/en/index.html
(Click “Vertical” of DIRECTION on the right-hand side)
However, I feel (though not sure) the sea-level data have been corrected for such land deformation.
Phil R says:
January 31, 2012 at 7:40 pm
Dave Wendt says:
January 31, 2012 at 12:24 pm
“Just curious, where do you live (not stalking, just curious, and region will do) and at what altitude
(and what reference is used to determine your altitude)?
I’m in Minnesota. I generally try to maintain an altitude of ground level. The elevation of my home is approximately 1200 ft which is relative to NGVD 29, although I’m reasonably certain that most of the reference benchmark network in the area has been updated to NAVD 88.
“Many reference points are, As you state, “completely artificial and abstract approximations…” They still serve a purpose because everyone can use them.”
Yes people can use abstractions and find them useful, but it helps if they take cognizance of their limitations when they do
Averaging temperatures, averaging CO2 ppm, averaging sealevel measurements…..
I can find no better way to obscure the understanding what is going on with a planet system.
Why not average all telephone numbers in the world, call that number, and “project” that the world is going under, because soon the devil will pick up the phone?
kwik says: January 31, 2012 at 11:30 pm
“Averaging temperatures, averaging CO2 ppm, averaging sealevel measurements…..”
I totally agree with you. Each of the 144 Japanese tide gauges exhibits a distinct feature; up, down, or nearly unchanged, probably reflecting local land deformation.
Japan’s sea levels havent been tampered with by western alarmists. Perhaps they should send it over to the NZ temperature guys to fix it.
thepompousgit says:
January 31, 2012 at 1:55 pm
@ur momisugly Tony Brown
I really enjoyed reading sea level changes from the Holocene to the Romans. Where do I find parts 2 & 3?”
You can read the next instalment when I have written it 🙂
Currently I am writing part 2 of ‘Historic variations in Arctic Ice’ covering the Holocene through to 1800 as that will likely inform the background for ‘ sea level changes part 2’ covering the Romans through to around 1600.
The rationale for doing it that way round is that logically melting ice should equate to rising sea levels, but what the time lapse would be -if there is the correlation- remains to be seen.
If you enjoy history, did you catch my recent article ‘The Long slow Thaw’
Thanks for your interest
Tonyb
Japan is sited over a subduction zone with many earthquakes, a high proportion above 5.0. Japan will be rising and falling, relative to the center of the earth, giving these changes that are themselves added to sea level changes.
… just thinking as a layman, if and area of the earth (say Japan) rises slightly then surely the surface area of the planet available to the oceans decreases by degree – therefore it has to rise in level – doesn’t it? . and vice versa?
So, surely the measurement of sea level rise/or fall can only be attributed to “climate change” once we have understand land mass rise and fall annually around the globe and factored that data into the calculation. (I’m glad its not my job!)
Land mass rise or fall maybe regional – but water finds its own level doesn’t it?
The satellite readings are oblivious to local ground movement. I think what is really being measured is the strength of the Kuroshio current, one of the strongest in the world. The faster it moves, the higher the water piles up due to the Coriolis effect. But the Oyashio current complicates things. –AGF
… please forgive my naivety, but my layman brain is now aching! Every land reclamation project around the globe (holland, dubai, singapore, etc,etc) (unless the “stuff” that becomes above the sea came from under the sea) plus every ship and boat that is launched every year must also contribute, albeit by a very small degree, to an increase in global sea level.
Every underwater eruption that creates another undersea volcano or new island, all coastal erosion etc, etc,……
more questions … does coastal erosion have an equal and opposite condition – i.e. is their such a thing as coastal “deposit”?
Am I right in thinking that coastal erosion = increase sea level? – I.e. land that was above sea level falls into the sea – therefore the sea has to rise? Or, do coasts “retreat” giving the sea more “room” and cancel out the effects?
… brain fade.
Thanks again to tokyoboy for drawing our attention to Japanese Sea Level:
1. Graph:
http://www.data.kishou.go.jp/shindan/a_1/sl_trend/sl_trend_graph.png
2. Oct. 19, 2009:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/18/maldivians-pull-underwater-publicity-stunt/#comment-207083
3. Nov. 11, 2010:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/11/27720/#comment-528106
4. Data:
http://cais.gsi.go.jp/cmdc/center/annual.html
A link from here [ http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=ja&tl=en&twu=1&u=http://www.data.kishou.go.jp/shindan/a_1/sl_trend/sl_trend.html ] is labeled “due to the strength of the westerly and north-south movement of the North Pacific Ocean”. It leads to:
“Fluctuation in the Japanese sea level (the relationship between westerly)
http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=ja&tl=en&u=http://www.data.kishou.go.jp/shindan/a_1/sl_trend/sl_ref/sl_model.html&usg=ALkJrhiVkoiJ8u02TSiHlS8J3zSxUPIrKQ
“[…] changes in sea level in Japanese waters, the ocean surface caused by the mechanical response to changes in the westerlies in the central North Pacific Ocean […]” Graph: http://www.data.kishou.go.jp/shindan/a_1/sl_trend/sl_ref/sl_model_fig2.gif
Point of clarification: “sea level corrections for ground deformation:” http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=ja&tl=en&u=http://www.data.kishou.go.jp/shindan/a_1/sl_trend/sl_ref/sl_clust.html&usg=ALkJrhjZIMiyUb1RJKVXCSWDSacskubL-Q
More detailed commentary another day. Off to work…
James says:
February 1, 2012 at 4:22 am…
I think a back of the envelope calculate based on the displaced volume of water from the world tonnage of shipping will help put things into perspective (I recall trying to see how much energy you might get if you tied a large ship to a generator via some gears in a port with a large tidal range – it was the beginning of ‘reality bites’ for me and ‘green’ energy.
Re the original post: I can’t think of any place less likely to match a global trend of sea-level than Japan – maybe Alaska: I seem to recall the 1964 earthquake had a massive, immediate, effect on local sea-levels (that reversed and exceeded previous trends). You would need to be VERY sure the tectonic and atmospheric adjustments for the Japanese sites were correct before believing tide gauge data reflected changing sea-level change only.
But even The Team have so far failed to massage the sea-level rise into something anyone can seriously get worried about and if the Australian Baseline Sealevel Monitoring Project ever starts showing significant rises I’ll think about adapting (after a quick and dirty validation of the data against my local Harbour, which is one of the monitoring sites!).
The folly of thinking that the volumes are some kind of constant and able to measure temperature or simple volume differences in water alone. You have moving and changing volumes in everything in the system. You could have a new mountain chain grow out of the ocean floor and displace 10% of the water and appear as melting ice, when it is volcanic activity. Plus you would get some ocean warming as a result. again, this points to so many variables present that it is irresponsible and impossible to tell what is happening in all the systems. What would happen to the ocean floor or plate tectonics if the oceans rose a few inches, I suppose they would displace somewhat from the extra weight. the entire system is moving and shifting on a sea of molten metals and rock.
My initial thoughts were ENSO/PDO. A couple of other possible considerations are LOD and Lunar variations although I have no idea if they would create decades long cycles.
Added major Japan earthquakes to 1940 (too many listed after 1940 to show)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/JMF.htm
as listed in Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_earthquakes_in_Japan
the most of the earthquakes occurred at the point of change in the direction of the magnetic field intensity.
As said by posters above, sea level is a local variable which depends on many local factors, therefore trying to ‘invent’ a mean global sea level and then expect to see a trend of any change that has any worth is unscientific and the method has no predictive capability.
No surprise, therefore, that there is no match between the Japanese tide gauge data and the estimated global mean. One day, when we have better detailed data we will be able to start asking the right questions about Earth’s total water content in all it’s dynamic phases. Until then casting chicken entrails would give as good in providing a forecast of future changes… 🙂
climatereason says:
January 31, 2012 at 11:58 am
A very good article about “Historic Variations in Sea Levels Part 1”.
Where can I find parts 2 and 3?
Hmmm! I thought being a layman (albeit a sceptical one) was easy!
I just assumed that it was accepted by all that sea level rises, if there are any, were attributable to climate “warming” (however caused).
It would appear that global sea level rises are meaningless – even if they could be measured – because of all of the other factors that might be contributing pluses and minuses.
As I undersatnd it now, land masses might rise or fall because of seismic activity or because ice has melted off it – or more has frozen on it. Does anyone “know” the result of all of this? Are satellites capable of measuring changes around the planet and determining whether, at any point in time, more land is further from the centre of the earth – or less?
If molten lava rises above “ground” level (even under the sea) does it leave a hole – or does the land surface sink to fill the void?
So many questions … so little brain power!
James says:
February 1, 2012 at 8:37 am
“I just assumed that it was accepted by all that sea level rises, if there are any, were attributable to climate “warming” (however caused).”
Ah, but if you interview scientists who are involved with actual measurement of sealevel, the picture becomes very, very different. Gone is the MSM press release alarmism. The hysteria is simply….gone. Back is the ordinary scientist, who cannot really draw any conlusions, because there is so much going on….land rising, land falling, currents, tides…..it goes on and on.
The clue from the IPCC’s viewpoint is to get rid of all these bothersome scientists, and give out only one message;
The world is doomed, unless we act NOW.
And what is the action? Transfer money from the rich world to the poor world. The problem with that is that when you shut down all fossil fuel driven industries in the west, there will not be any rich countries left to transfer from. Everyone gets poor. And what then? Pol Pot knew what then.