By Dr. Patrick Michaels from World Climate Report
Sea level rise is a topic that we frequently focus on because of all the gross environmental alterations which may result from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, it is perhaps the only one which could lead to conditions unexperienced by modern societies. A swift (or accelerating) sea level rise sustained for multiple decades and/or centuries would pose challenges for many coastal locations, including major cities around the world—challenges that would have to be met in some manner to avoid inundation of valuable assets. However, as we often point out, observational evidence on the rate of sea level rise is reassuring, because the current rate of sea level rise from global warming lies far beneath the rates associated with catastrophe. While some alarmists project sea level rise of between 1 to 6 meters (3 to 20 feet) by the end of this century, currently sea level is only inching up at a rate of about 20 to 30 centimeters per hundred years (or about 7 to 11 inches of additional rise by the year 2100)—a rate some 3-4 times below the low end of the alarmist spectrum, and a whopping 20 to 30 times beneath the high end.
To get from here to catastrophe surely requires a significant acceleration in sea level. And, because disasters pay scientists handsomely, a lot of people have been looking. Here is how the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its Fourth Assessment Report summed up its investigation:
Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3] mm per year over 1961 to 2003. The rate was faster over 1993 to 2003: about 3.1 [2.4 to 3.8] mm per year. Whether the faster rate for 1993 to 2003 reflects decadal variability or an increase in the longer-term trend is unclear. There is high confidence that the rate of observed sea level rise increased from th3 19th to the 20th century, the total 20th-century rise is estimated to be 0.17 [0.12 to 0.22] m.
Since 2003—the last data assessed by the IPCC—the rate of sea level rise has slowed (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Decadal (overlapping) rates for sea level rise as determined from the satellite sea level rise observations, 1993-2011 (data available from http://sealevel.colorado.edu/).
This observation seems to tip the scale to “decadal variability” rather than an “increase in the longer-term trend” in explaining the 1993 to 2003 behavior.
But there is much more evidence that no anthropogenic global warming-related acceleration of sea level rise is taking place.
A couple of months ago, an important paper was published that examined the changing historical contribution of ground water removal (for human water needs, primarily irrigation) to global sea level. A primary finding was that this non-climate component of sea level rise was both significant and rapidly increasing, currently making up between 15 and 25 percent of the current observed rate of sea level rise. Further, the rate of ground water extraction has been increasing over time, which imparts a slight acceleration to the rate of sea level rise over the past half-century or so. Once this non-climate signal is removed, there remains no evidence for a climate-related acceleration. We covered that finding here.
Another paper has just been accepted in the journal Geophysical Research Letters that identified multidecadal cycles in the historical mean sea level observations from many ocean basins. A research team led by Don Chambers from the University of South Florida examined tide gauge records from across the globe and found oscillations with a period of about 60 years in all ocean basins except the Central/Eastern North Pacific. Chambers et al., note that a 60-yr quasi oscillation has previously been identified in other earth/climate systems including ocean circulation, global mean surface temperatures, large-scale precipitation patterns, and atmospheric pressure, among other things. Many of these cycles can be traced back hundreds of years—an indication of a natural (rather than manmade) origin.
Chambers and colleagues note that given the strong possibility for such cycles in the global sea level data, that care must be taken when attempting to identify accelerations, as they, in fact, simply be upswings in the natural oscillatory behavior. For instance, in most ocean basins, the bottom of the cycle was reached in the 1980s and an upswing has been occurring since then—precisely when the IPCC notes that the rate of sea level rise has been increasing. For this reason, Chambers et al. note:
The 60-year oscillation will, however, change our interpretation of the trends when estimated over periods less than 1-cycle of the oscillation. Although several studies have suggested the recent change in trends of global [e.g., Merrifield et al., 2009] or regional [e.g., Sallenger et al., 2012] sea level rise reflects an acceleration, this must be re-examined in light of a possible 60-year fluctuation. While technically correct that the sea level is accelerating in the sense that recent rates are higher than the long-term rate, there have been previous periods were the rate was decelerating, and the rates along the Northeast U.S. coast have what appears to be a 60-year period [Figure 4 of Sallenger et al., 2012], which is consistent with our observations of sea level variability at New York City and Baltimore. Until we understand whether the multi decadal variations in sea level reflect distinct inflexion points or a 60-year oscillation and whether there is a [Global Mean Sea Level, GMSL] signature, one should be cautious about computations of acceleration in sea level records unless they are longer than two cycles of the oscillation or at least account for the possibility of a 60-year oscillation in their model. This especially applies to interpretation of acceleration in GMSL using only the 20-year record of from satellite altimetry and to evaluations of short records of mean sea level from individual gauges. [emphasis added –eds.]
The bottom line is this: the more people look for the anticipated acceleration in the rate of sea level rise, the less evidence they seem to find in support of it. All the while, we eat into the 21st century with a rate of sea level rise not much different from that experienced during the 20th century—and one which was hardly catastrophic, readily proven by a simple look around.
References:
Chambers, D., M.A. Merrifield, and R. S. Nerem, 2012. Is there a 60-year oscillation in global mean sea level? Geophysical Research Letters, doi:1029/2012GL052885, in press.
Wada, Y., et al., 2012. Past and future contribution of global groundwater depletion to sea-level rise. Geophysical Research Letters, 39, L09402, doi:10.1029/2012GL051230.
Sea levels have been rising since the end of the last ice age many thousands of years ago. Look at the rate of rise – that is the issue. Stating the obvious and assuming sceptics disagree is the wrong track to take. Apparently more Warmists believe that the moon landings were faked than sceptics. Think about it.
There are certainly decadal length variations from ongoing sea level trends, due in large part to ENSO variations.
The long term trend, however, shows a _significant_ acceleration over the 20th century. See Church et al 2006 (http://naturescapebroward.com/NaturalResources/ClimateChange/Documents/GRL_Church_White_2006_024826.pdf) for details.
Michaels, in focusing on 2003 and later data only, is cherry-picking a short term variation and claiming it as a long term trend (http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47). Looking at the full body of data leads to a different conclusion.
It’s also worth looking at a longer term of history – http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_intro.html shows Holocene sea level rises over the last 140,000 years, with the Holocene flattening around 8000 years ago. And then the very large acceleration over the last 150 years (in Fig. 2).
Again, Michaels is cherry-picking a short interval, which is not statistically significant given the variations in sea level rise.
I was intrigued by the idea of the shift , so I had a closer look. Seems like a total artefact of their data massaging.
I always opt for lightly cooked data rather than a puree, so usually I would download the non seasonal , no barom versions. However, as frequent flyers at WUWT will know earlier this year we were deprived of that choice. I wrote and requested ‘nob’ versions and did not even get the courtesy of a reply.
Now, I just went back and dug out an old ‘nob’ copy I had from April 2011 and plotted it all up.( I also looked at the effect of their deseasonalising but that does not show anything odd.)
http://i47.tinypic.com/qqs9ip.png
Just look at that HUGE change in “climate” in the more recent version of the same dataset. The pre-2000 data is completely reversed. WTFUWT ??
What’s worse is that the no-longer-available earlier version actually does bear some resemblance to the atmospheric data. I have some ideas about why it drifts up a bit recently but it’s in the same ballpark.
I’ve always been very dubious of how a barometer adjustment could have any effect on MEAN global sea level. But we no longer get the option , like we don’t the option of the GAIA “correction”.
Now maybe this is not due to B.A. at all , it’s just some other “corrections” they applied earlier this year when they remade the GMSL dataset. That is probably more likely.
What ever they did it looks like they got it badly wrong.
Oops! I just spotted the dates are back to front on the legend of that graph. I have double-checked dates and content of the data files and my comments are correct as to which is which. Sorry for any confusion.
This is really bad news. The two datasets where corroborating each other last year which would have given a bit more confidence in both .
Now that corroboration suggests Roy Spencer et al are producing reliable data and Colorado have gone off into the land of adjustment fairies.
KR,
CSIRO has less credibility than GISS. They regularly “adjust” their charts. Actual sea level rise has kept closely to Holgate’s curve:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Sea_Level_Holgate.jpg
KR,
CSIRO’s graph is model-based. Here are actual sea level charts I found with a short search:
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/animation.gif
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/current/sl_ns_global.png
http://www.real-science.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/ScreenHunter_16-Dec.-30-16.05.jpg
http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/7734/sealevelchange1870.png
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0133f328df8d970b-pi
http://www.real-science.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/ScreenHunter_57-Dec.-07-07.45.jpg
http://ecotretas.blogspot.com/2011/07/more-hiding-decline.html
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/paintimage2111.jpg?w=640&h=422
http://oi51.tinypic.com/28tkoix.jpg
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/1352_high.png
http://bp2.blogger.com/__VkzVMn3cHA/SFc69IZ90yI/AAAAAAAAACk/7pcWSxd5Vug/s1600-h/UC+Global+Sea+Level.bmp
http://climatesanity.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/holgate-9-station-with-std-dev-digitized.jpg
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/topex_2009_pretty_graph.jpg
There are lots more charts showing the same data. Sea levels are not accelerating.
CSIRO and you are cherry-picking, not Dr. Michaels.
D Boehm – You’ve shown a great many graphs, primarily from blogs, and mostly of very short time periods. For example, your first link is of the US coastline, where the glacial isostatic rebound is strongly seen – thus (if not accounted for) masking global sea level rise.
Can you point to any peer-reviewed (i.e., considered by people who actually know the field) references that indicate that Church et al or CSIRO are incorrect? Data that is global in extent, rather than from a few tidal gauges?
Please keep in mind that we are seeing sea level rise against the Holocene sea level drop, as would have been expected at the end of an interglacial – sea level rise that is therefore not part of the historic Milankovitch cycle.
I humbly submit that we have reached a dripping point.
KR,
It is clear that no matter how many sources I post, you will never agree with any of them. I only posted those examples to show everyone that your links are contradicted.
Remember that ‘Skeptical Science’ is an unreliable blog that changes peoples’ comments without admitting it, invents charts, and links to known fabrications. If you don’t know they are unreliable then you haven’t read the sidebar. They have their own special category.
You purport to show that the sea level rise is rapidly accelerating. That is false. I think you know it to be false. Therefore you are spreading deception:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/current/sl_ns_global.png
The only way your kind can argue is by spreading deception. That is why your credibility is nonexistent.
From D Boehm on September 13, 2012 at 5:51 pm:
http://www.real-science.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/ScreenHunter_16-Dec.-30-16.05.jpg
http://www.real-science.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/ScreenHunter_57-Dec.-07-07.45.jpg
Access Denied. Goddard’s old site.
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0133f328df8d970b-pi
Vulnerable to cherrypicking charges. Lacks most recent data, not global.
http://oi51.tinypic.com/28tkoix.jpg
Hack job, data deleted.
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/1352_high.png
http://bp2.blogger.com/__VkzVMn3cHA/SFc69IZ90yI/AAAAAAAAACk/7pcWSxd5Vug/s1600-h/UC+Global+Sea+Level.bmp
Source?
http://climatesanity.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/holgate-9-station-with-std-dev-digitized.jpg
Data only to 2000?
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/paintimage2111.jpg?w=640&h=422
See this:
Just in time for the next IPCC report, an error was “discovered” in Envisat data that’s allowed them to dramatically increase the found MSL rise rate, by over 400%. So that chart has been obsoleted.
(And how could KR have evaluated the “access denied” charts? He shot them down without even trying the links. Why bother looking at other evidence when you’ve already decided what the evidence should conclude?)
D Boehm, that last graph you linked to was for a 20 year period that showed no sign of acceleration or decelleration. But as usual, 20 years is probably not long enough for the signal to overcome the noise, particularly as you are looking for the second derivative of sea level.
kadaka,
As I explained, those links were found after a quick search. There are lots more that show the same thing. There has been no rapid acceleration of sea levels, as KR claims.
I agree that the Envisat “adjustment” was highly questionable. John Daly shows that after a century and a half there is no significant sea level rise. That is a verifiable observation, which I accept over a dubious Envisat adjustment, which, as you pointed out, was done conveniently in time for AR-5. The IPCC, GISS, and other agencies have been so thoroughly dishonest that the default position must be that they are lying about Envisat. Every ‘adjustment’ seems to go in only one direction: that of the climate alarmist narrative. The onus is on those claiming the adjusted data is correct, to prove it beyond any doubt. What they are improbably claiming is that all other sea level data is wrong.
The U of Colorado has an updated sea level chart online:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/current/sl_ns_global.png
It is a compilation of satellites’ data, and it shows conclusively that there is no acceleration in the sea level rise. It also contradicts the Envisat “adjustment”. And it is in line with the findings of the late John Daly:
http://www.john-daly.com/deadisle/index.htm
KR said on September 13, 2012 at 4:22 pm, “The long term trend, however, shows a _significant_ acceleration over the 20th century. See Church et al 2006 for details. Michaels… is cherry-picking.”
KR, you’re behind the times. The long term trend shows no statistically significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise.
However, you’re not alone in your confusion about sea level rise. Much of that confusion results from misunderstanding the findings of the paper you cited, Church & White (2006), “A 20th Century Acceleration in Global Sea-Level Rise.”
Church & White fit a quadratic to averaged and adjusted tide gauge data, and detected a small acceleration in rate of sea level rise for the 20th century as a whole. But it turns out that all of that acceleration occurred in the first quarter of the 20th century (and the late 19th century). After 1925, their data showed a small deceleration in rate of sea level rise, rather than acceleration.
Since nearly all of the anthropogenic contribution to CO2 levels occurred after 1925, that means Church & White detected no acceleration in rate of sea level rise in response to anthropogenic CO2.
In 2009, Church and White released a new data set, based on a different set of tide gauges. I applied their 2006 analysis method to the new data. I found that it not only showed deceleration in sea level rise after 1925, all of the acceleration in sea level rise for the full 20th century was also gone.
I shared my results with Drs. Church & White, and on June 18, 2010, Dr. Church replied, confirming my analysis: “For the 1901 to 2007 period, again we agree with your result and get a non-significant and small deceleration.”
In 2011, Church and White released a third data set. This one shows a very slight acceleration in sea level rise after 1925, though much smaller in magnitude than the deceleration seen in their other data sets. The post-1925 acceleration in this data set, if it continued to 2080, would add just 0.8 inches of sea level rise, compared to a linear projection.
These results were published in Natural Hazards this year, DOI:10.1007/s11069-012-0159-8.
For many more references in the literature to the fact that sea level measurements show no acceleration in response to elevated CO2, see my web site:
http://www.sealevel.info
KR also asked on September 13, 2012 at 6:13 pm, “Can you point to any peer-reviewed (i.e., considered by people who actually know the field) references that indicate that Church et al or CSIRO are incorrect? Data that is global in extent, rather than from a few tidal gauges?”
Yes, KR. See my paper in Natural Hazards, cited above, and the results confirmed by Dr. Church.
daveburton – Thank you, the comment you linked to is greatly appreciated and worth reading.
I will note a few things, however: The Houston and Dean paper you linked has some significant issues, including that they chose a 1930 minima in acceleration (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/is-sea-level-rise-accelerating/), which can be directly related to the mid-20th century plateau in warming – it is not a good measure of recent warming or the effects thereof on sea level. I find it quite curious that the minima they discussed is the lowest value in a 140 year span, not the average rate over that period.
Secondly, linear extrapolation from a subset of tidal gauges (without, I will note, any glacial isostatic adjustment discussed in your comment) is not really comparable to the global data when accounting for land rise/sink changes in addition to sea levels.
Third, the 2011 Church and White paper (ftp://dossier.ogp.noaa.gov/NCASLR/Publications/Church_White_2011_HistoricSLR_1880_2009.pdf), published after your 2010 discussion, states that:
So they find, in their current work, faster rise since 1961 than since 1900, and a continuing acceleration in the sea level rise rate.
Have you discussed these matters with Church et al since 2010? If so, I would be quite curious as to their response.
D Boehm says:
September 13, 2012 at 8:13 pm
John Daly shows that after a century and a half there is no significant sea level rise.
=========
The British Admiralty charts from 200+ years ago, made by the likes of Cook, Vancouver, Bligh and Flinders also show no significant sea level rise.
The BA charts remain one of the finest scientific records in existence. They show the sea levels world wide to an accuracy of 1 foot, from a time long before CO2 became an issue.
The BA charts drawn 200+ years ago have not been corrected for climate change or sea level rise, even though people’s lives depend on the charts being correct. This is rather conclusive evidence that sea level rise is cyclical. Over a period of 200 years it nets out to less than 1 foot.
KR, first of all, your criticism of Houston and Dean is misplaced. Contrary to that ridiculous Rahmstorf RC blog post that you cited, there was no minima in sea-level rise acceleration circa 1930. Just the opposite, in fact: there was a spike. C&W 2006 called it “a clear change of slope at ~ 1930.” By “change” they meant “increase.” (You can see why Rahmstorf gets little respect around here.)
Rahmstorf then compounds his error by citing a Tamino blog post, for crying out loud. Tamino censors his blog to prevent dissent and embarrassment, and it’s easy to see why. Here’s another of his blog articles attacking Houston & Dean, and here’s a quote from it:
Do you see it? Tamino conflated coastal tide gauge data with mid-ocean satellite altimeter data! And he doesn’t even understand that there’s anything wrong with that!
That’s the only way you can get a graph from actual data that seems to show acceleration in the rate of sea level rise in the last 3/4 century: by comparing apples to oranges, i.e., sea level in different locations (or by using too-short intervals).
Sea level trends vary widely from one location to another. At some places in Scandinavia sea level is falling about 8 mm/year, due to post-glacial rebound. At Galveston, it was until recently rising at about 6 mm/year, due to land subsidence. If you draw a graph with sea level at one location until 15 or 20 years ago, and then replace it or average it with sea level from a different location for the remainder of the graph, then you can create the illusion of acceleration.
That’s what Tamino did.
Averaged tide gauges show no acceleration in the rate of sea level for more than 3/4 century.
Satellite data has major quality issues, and there’s less than 20 years of it (about 60 years is needed to establish a robust trend), but, such as it is, it also indicates that sea level rise has decelerated in the last few years.
Only by gross statistical malpractice is it possible to detect statistically significant acceleration in sea level rise over the last 70-85 years.
The entire basis for projections of accelerated sea-level rise is that CO2 levels are going up. To test the hypothesis that CO2 drives sea-level rise, one should not look for acceleration in rate of sealevel rise before CO2 levels went up substantially. But that’s exactly what you’re doing when you fit a quadratic to sea level from 1870 to present or 1900 to present, because CO2 levels didn’t start going up significantly until about 70 or 80 years ago.
The important thing to recognize is that all (in C&W 2006, C&W 2009, and most other datasets) or nearly all (in C&W 2011) of the acceleration in rate of sea-level rise occurred before there was a substantial anthropogenic contribution to CO2 levels. When CO2 levels took off, sea-level rise acceleration ceased!
Now, as we all know, correlation does not imply causation. So I’m not suggesting that anthropogenic CO2 caused the end of the late-19th and early-20th century acceleration in sea-level rise. But it’s a lead-pipe cinch that anthropogenic CO2 did not cause the acceleration in sea-level rise which preceded it.
Since the last 3/4 century of anthropogenically-driven CO2 increases have resulted in no measurable acceleration in rate of sea-level rise so far, it’s a safe bet that the next 3/4 century of anthropogenically-driven CO2 increases won’t cause much, if any, acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise, either.
ferd,
You are right, as usual. Here is more evidence that sea level rise is cyclical:
http://climatesanity.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/holgate-9-station-with-std-dev-digitized.jpg
Next, this chart shows there has been no acceleration either short term or long term:
http://oi51.tinypic.com/28tkoix.jpg (The provenance is in the text below the chart. The original papers can be found with a simple search.)
Below is a Bill Illis chart going back to the 1870’s:
http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/7734/sealevelchange1870.png
Bill is very precise in his chart construction.
KR’s arguments are unconvincing. He wants to show that isostatic sea level rise proves AGW because of supposed recent acceleration. However, isostatic SL rise is not happening as predicted. As Bill Illis shows, there has been recent deceleration. That fact all by itself challenges Kevin Trenberth’s belief that the ‘missing’ heat from AGW is hidden somewhere in the oceans. If it were, isostatic SL rise would be happening, but it isn’t.
What really shows that SL rise is a non-issue is the fact that SL is not a major warmist argument. There are too many problems with it from the point of view of the warmists. They don’t want to be continually shown that they are wrong. So they make a much bigger deal out of sea ice instead. I suspect they will move on to other alarms once sea ice begins to re-freeze. Because there is always some weather event they can blame on AGW.
As others have pointed out, AGW is only a conjecture. There is no real scientific evidence to support it. Yes, radiative physics is valid. But radiative physics is not AGW. They are different, and we don’t know much about all the various climate dynamics. It is entirely possible that co2 cools on balance, or that it is essentially neutral.
What we do know is that for the most part, the holocene has been very much in balance. The extremely small 0.8º change in temperature since the mid-1800s is in fact pretty unusual. Long term, the global temperature has changed by ten degrees or more in a very short decadal time frame.
Someone asked a few days ago: show us just one instance of positive fedback. AGW could be a candidate – if it reaally existed. There is no proof of AGW, but there is plenty of evidence that co2 is caused by temperature, not the other way round. So AGW is only a conjecture, it is not a hypothesis, and it is not a theory. It could be true but its effect is so minor that engineers can easily handle any resulting problems.
And so far there are no AGW problems., showing any global harm or damage fom anthropogenic co2 emissions. Every claimed problem always turns out to have other explanations. If climatology were an honest science, then at this point scientists would have to admit that their conjecture was wrong in the first place. But money and egos intervene, and so what would normally be rejected takes on a life of its own.
KR
You will be aware of Simon Holgate’s work, who estimated that sea level rise in the first half of the 20th century was greater than in the second half of the 20th century (although statistically there was little difference)
Tonyb
daveburton – ” Contrary to that ridiculous Rahmstorf RC blog post that you cited, there was no minima in sea-level rise acceleration circa 1930. Just the opposite, in fact: there was a spike.”
There was certainly a spike in sea level rise – but the inflection point of the rate of acceleration ~1930 just prior to a mid-century flattening is indeed a minima in the acceleration data. In addition, H&D only used a quadratic fit, when there have indeed been non-quadratic variations over the last 150 years – which closely match the temperature record.
See Rahmstorf 2012 (http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/modeling-sea-level-rise-25857988) Fig. 1 for a comparison of rates of change between sea level rise and temperature, in addition to a very interesting discussion of physical versus semi-empirical models and predictions of sea level.
“Tamino conflated coastal tide gauge data with mid-ocean satellite altimeter data! And he doesn’t even understand that there’s anything wrong with that!”
Do you realize that the tidal gauge data Tamino used, which was also used by Church and White, comes from Domingues 2009 (ftp://soest.hawaii.edu/coastal/Climate%20Articles/Domingues_2008%20Improved%20estimates%20of%20sea%20level%20rise.pdf), 500 globally distributed gauges which are corrected for both atmospheric pressure and glacial isostatic adjustment – meaning that the tide gauge and satellite data are directly comparable? It’s _entirely_ appropriate to consider those two sources on the same baseline, and I don’t think your objection is supportable.
“Now, as we all know, correlation does not imply causation. So I’m not suggesting that anthropogenic CO2 caused the end of the late-19th and early-20th century acceleration in sea-level rise. But it’s a lead-pipe cinch that anthropogenic CO2 did not cause the acceleration in sea-level rise which preceded it.”
I would point out that sea level rates follow temperature – which is a quite separate discussion from temperature following CO2. From Kemp et al 2011 (http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/shared/articles/KempetalPNAS11.pdf):
First, I botched a link. Clicking on “Rahmstorf” (the first of my two links) should have gone here:
http://tinyurl.com/rahmstuff
Sorry about that!
Second, KR, I don’t understand what you meant with this: “Secondly, linear extrapolation from a subset of tidal gauges (without, I will note, any glacial isostatic adjustment discussed in your comment) is not really comparable to the global data when accounting for land rise/sink changes in addition to sea levels.”
Are you objecting to the use of tide gauge data? Tide gauge data is “the global data.” Tide gauges are the source of the best data we have about sea level, by far. Some of the best tide gauge records are 10x as long as the satellite records, and certainly more trustworthy. (Plus, of course, the tide gauge records are vastly more reliable than attempts to infer ancient sea levels from “proxies.”)
What’s more, tide gauges have the advantage of measuring sea level where it matters: at the coast. Satellites measure sea level over the open ocean, where it doesn’t matter, and where the measurements are affected by factors that don’t affect coastal sea levels (such a sea surface temperature).
As for glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA), if you’re trying to detect acceleration, GIA is nearly irrelevant. It’s a (very roughly calculated!) “adjustment” to measured local sea level rates of change, to account for PGR, the the current, very slow isostatic response to events that happened thousands of years ago. The great northern ice sheets have been mostly gone for 6000 years, and tide gauge records, most of which are much less than 200 years long, are so comparatively short that GIA can be closely approximated as linear over the periods of the tide gauge records, which means it doesn’t significantly affect acceleration calculations.
Note that my Natural Hazards article referenced two kinds of sea level data:
1) Church & White’s various global data sets, which are “gridded” (a crude weighted averaging technique), adjusted with Peltier’s GIA estimates, and adjusted with “an additional spatially uniform field… to represent changes in GMSL” (whatever that is); and,
2) Local, measured sea levels at NY tide gauges, used for making projections of future sea level there.
Because rates of PGR are not changing much on sub-century timescales, when projecting local sea level rise on those timescales it is a mistake to muddle the data with GIA estimates. The measured rates of local mean sea level include all factors that affect sea level there: eustatic (global) sea level change (which is at most linear), PGR/GIA (which is very close to linear), and local land subsidence (the most potentially variable component). Unless you anticipate changes in local local land subsidence rates (perhaps due to increased or decreased extraction of groundwater or oil or gas), a linear projection of the historical sea level trend at a particular location is clearly the best predictor for future sea level change there.
daveburton – An additional overview of the current science (filmed early this year) is available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHrVOnLKjuQ&feature=plcp. We are seeing acceleration according to the best data available.
“Satellites measure sea level over the open ocean, where it doesn’t matter…”
What a curious statement. Sea level rise affects the entire world, albeit with different geographic effects when combined with coastal land rise and fall. Satellite measurements are a good measure of the global rise rates.
NeilT September 13, 2012 at 6:32 am
……… 1mm will destroy our society over 2 centuries, 2mm just makes it faster. 3mm guarantees that our grandchildren pick up the check, 4mm our Children…….
Don’t panic yet, Neil, we should all be OK:
….. likely to raise sea level 15 cm by the year 2050 and 34 cm (1 foot) by the year 2100.
There is also a 10 percent chance that climate change will contribute 30 cm by 2050 and 65 cm (approx 2 ft) by 2100. ……..
A two foot rise in sea level (USA) would eliminate approximately 10,000 square miles of land (including current wetlands and newly inundated dry land), an area equal to the combined size of Massachusetts and Delaware (EPA, 1989).
That is an area of 100 x 100 miles.
NeilT wrote, “1mm will destroy our society over 2 centuries, 2mm just makes it faster”
I have good news, Neil. If sea level rises at just 1mm/year, dust accumulation and vegetation growth can likely keep up with the slowly rising water levels indefinitely, in most climates. In the tropics, peat can sometimes accumulate at over 10mm/year. Coral can grow even faster than that.
Do you feel better, now, Neil?
Dave Burton
GMSL means global mean sea level
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
It should be mentioned that no record is being taken by satellites of the coastal sea levels-that is down to tide gauges.
tonyb