Finds sea levels have risen over the past 9 years [2002-2011] at a rate of only 1.7 mm/yr, equivalent to 6.7 inches per century, matching tide gauge data rates.
The paper corroborates the NOAA 2012 Sea Level Budget which finds sea levels have risen at only 1.1-1.3 mm/yr over the past 7 years from 2005-2012 [less than 5 inches/century], and the paper of Chambers et al finding “sea level has been rising on average by 1.7 mm/year over the last 110 years.”
From the IPCC FAR Chapter 5.5.2: Holgate and Woodworth (2004) estimated a rate of 1.7 ± 0.4 mm yr–1 sea level change averaged along the global coastline during the period 1948 to 2002, based on data from 177 stations divided into 13 regions. Church et al. (2004) (discussed further below) determined a global rise of 1.8 ± 0.3 mm yr–1 during 1950 to 2000, and Church and White (2006) determined a change of 1.7 ± 0.3 mm yr–1 for the 20th century.
The paper:
Impact of Continental Mass Change on Rate-of-Rise of Sea Level
Present-day continental mass variation as observed by space gravimetry reveals secular mass decline and accumulation. Whereas the former contributes to sea-level rise, the latter results in sea-level fall. As such, consideration of mass accumulation (rather than focussing solely on mass loss) is important for reliable overall estimates of sea-level change. Using data from the Gravity Recovery And Climate Experiment satellite mission, we quantify mass-change trends in 19 continental areas that exhibit a dominant signal. The integrated mass change within these regions is representative of the variation over the whole land areas. During the integer 9-year period of May 2002 to April 2011, GIA-adjusted mass gain and mass loss in these areas contributed, on average, to -(0.7 ± 0.4) mm/year of sea-level fall and + (1.8 ± 0.2) mm/year of sea-level rise; the net effect was + (1.1 ± 0.6) mm/year. Ice melting over Greenland, Iceland, Svalbard, the Canadian Arctic archipelago, Antarctica, Alaska and Patagonia was responsible for + (1.4±0.2) mm/year of the total balance. Hence, land-water mass accumulation compensated about 20 % of the impact of ice-melt water influx to the oceans. In order to assess the impact of geocentre motion, we converted geocentre coordinates derived from satellite laser ranging (SLR) to degree-one geopotential coefficients. We found geocentre motion to introduce small biases to mass-change and sea-level change estimates; its overall effect is + (0.1 ± 0.1) mm/year. This value, however, should be taken with care owing to questionable reliability of secular trends in SLR-derived geocentre coordinates.
A slide show on the paper is available here: Baur_GGHS2012
Reference
Baur, O., Kuhn, M. and Featherstone, W.E. 2013. Continental mass change from GRACE over 2002-2011 and its impact on sea level. Journal of Geodesy 87: 117-125.
Background
The authors write that “present-day continental mass variation as observed by space gravimetry reveals secular mass decline and accumulation,” and that “whereas the former contributes to sea-level rise, the latter results in sea-level fall.” Therefore, they state that “consideration of mass accumulation (rather than focusing solely on mass loss) is important for reliable overall estimates of sea-level change.”
What was done
Employing data derived from the Gravity Recovery And Climate Experiment – the GRACE satellite mission – Baur et al. assessed continental mass variations on a global scale, including both land-ice and land-water contributions, for 19 continental areas that exhibited significant signals. This they did for a nine-year period (2002-2011), which included “an additional 1-3 years of time-variable gravity fields over previous studies.” And to compensate for the impact of glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA), they applied the GIA model of Paulson et al. (2007).
What was learned
Over the nine years of their study, the three researchers report that the mean GIA-adjusted mass gain and mass loss in the 19 areas of their primary focus amounted to -(0.7 ± 0.4 mm/year) of sea-level fall and +(1.8 ± 0.6) mm/year of sea-level rise, for a net effect of +(1.1 ± 0.6) mm/year. Then, to obtain a figure for total sea-level change, they added the steric component of +(0.5 ± 0.5) mm/year, which was derived by Leuliette and Willis (2011), to their net result to obtain a final (geocenter neglected) result of +(1.6 ± 0.8) mm/year and a final (geocenter corrected) result of +(1.7 ± 0.8) mm/year.
What it means
The final geocenter-corrected result of Baur et al. is most heartening, as Chambers et al. (2012) indicate that “sea level has been rising on average by 1.7 mm/year over the last 110 years,” as is also suggested by the analyses of Church and White (2006) and Holgate (2007). Concomitantly, the air’s CO2 concentration has risen by close to a third. And, still, it has not impacted the rate-of-rise of global sea level!
References
Chambers, D.P, Merrifield, M.A. and Nerem, R.S. 2012. Is there a 60-year oscillation in global mean sea level? Geophysical Research Letters 39: 10.1029/2012GL052885.
Church, J.A. and White, N.J. 2006. A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise. Geophysical Research Letters 33: 10.1029/2005GL024826.
Holgate, S.J. 2007. On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century. Geophysical Research Letters 34: 10.1029/2006GL028492.
Paulson, A., Zhong, S. and Wahr, J. 2007. Inference of mantle viscosity from GRACE and relative sea level data. Geophysical Journal International 171: 497-508.
This essay was derived from several sources: CO2Science.org, The Hockey Schtick, and independent located content.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Oh dear. Living only 50 feet above the tidal River Thames, was I premature to commission a landing stage and boathouse at the end of my garden?
Perhaps I’d better delay the opening gala and regatta until next year…… Mrs Alder has bought a new hat and frock too……
@Latimer
I’m sure you can make use of the hat and frock at the weekends 😉
ITs strange how study after study, based on better and better methds, still seem to come up with a steady rate of sea level rise less than about 2 mm /yr. Even the IPCC reports give these figures.
And yet, year after year, the popular meme of accelerating sea level rises keeps doing the rounds. In 2001 the UK Chief Scientist announced the 6 m in 100 years claim. More than ten years on, has sea level risen the predicted 600 mm (2 ft)? Nope, just 17 mm or so.
Sea level is rising
…very, very slowly!
u mean this isn’t true?
2 July: Radio Free Asia: Parameswaran Ponnudurai: Climate Change Conjures Up ‘Alarming’ Scenarios in Southeast Asia
Imagine these scenarios: The rice bowl of Vietnam cracking. Popular diving spots in the Philippines, Malaysia, and Indonesia lying idle with no tourists. Nearly half of Bangkok inundated with water.
Well, they could become a reality in 20 to 30 years—no thanks to the adverse effects of climate change in Southeast Asia…
The warming climate will push up the sea level in the region and cause an increase in heat extremes, a higher intensity of tropical cyclones, and ocean acidification stemming from excess carbon dioxide in the air, according to the latest edition of the (World) bank’s “Turn Down the Heat” report…
The Mekong Delta is also Vietnam’s most important fishing region. It is home to almost half of Vietnam’s marine fishing vessels and produces two thirds of Vietnam’s fish from aquaculture…
By 2050, the sea-level rise is expected to increase by over 30 percent of the total current area—1.3 million hectares— affected by saltwater intrusion in the delta, the report said…
It also warns that floods due to sea-level rise will engulf 43 percent of Thailand’s capital Bangkok around 2025, and about 70 percent in 2100.
Bangkok together with Jakarta, Yangon, Manila, and Ho Chi Minh City are projected to be among cities in Southeast Asia to be most affected by sea-level rise and increased storm surges…
http://www.rfa.org/english/commentaries/east-asia-beat/climate-change-07022013165938.html
Radio Free Asia
Radio Free Asia (RFA) is a private, nonprofit corporation that broadcasts and publishes online news, information, and commentary to listeners in East Asia who do not have unfettered access to free, reliable domestic news media. RFA is funded in part by an annual grant from the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG)…
RFA “aims to fill a critical gap in the lives of people across Asia.” The entity was originally established by the United States Congress through legislation enacted in 1994. Its mandate is to broadcast timely, accurate news happening within its broadcast region that is “otherwise not reported”…
CRITICISM
According to a report by the Congressional Research Service of the U.S. government, official state-controlled newspapers in China have run editorials claiming Radio Free Asia is a CIA broadcast operation.
North Korea’s state-run Korean Central News Agency has referred to Radio Free Asia as “reptile broadcasting services…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Free_Asia
@MangoChutney
You haven’t met Mrs Alder! I haven’t got enough brave pills to try……….
@Latimer Alder
I’d give you some of mine, but I used them all up when Mrs Alder asked me to join you for afternoon tea – needless to say, I didn’t make it. Not enough brave pills in the world
Phantasists hate hardware, court told.
Good timing. Today the BBC are outlining, via Jonathan Amos [science correspondent] the news that the Antarctic is melting and raising the sea level.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23144184
Quotes like the one below will reassure their readers [sarc]
“The lake drainage event reported here was quite staggering in its size and the 3D image we got of the crater in the surface after the lake drained is unprecedented.”
Less than 2mm per year recorded rise for decades makes more sense to me however………
Amazing what real data shows before alarmist data manipulators get at it.
What does the unmanipulated data show? Answer: Not much and absolutely nothing to be concerned about.
At the end of the day, climate alarmism is all about keeping the Global Warming gravy train on its tracks, and not much else.
The silence from the alarmist community on this subject will be deafening, as prophecies of catastrophic rises in sea levels are one of their holiest of holy grails.
Of course, Sandy proves this paper to be all wrong. Come on trolls, let’s be having you, tell us why the unmanipulated data is nonsense.
That’s it then. No acceleration in MSL (just a normal, steady, rise) implies no increase in rate of melt of land-based ice which must also imply no overall increase in arctic/antarctic temperatures (as affecting the land-based ice sheets) and no increase in the sea temperatures arriving from the middle latitudes and tropics.
Yet more proof (even for us non-scientists) that, at present, global warming simply isn’t happening – nor climate change, climate weirding or any of the other usual silly memes. We are just seeing the same old (variable, chaotic) weather we have always seen – including, sadly, that resulting in the summer wildfires in Arizona.
Has anyone tipped the winked to Prince
NumptyCharles?ThinkingScientist says:
July 3, 2013 at 12:32 am
ITs strange how study after study, based on better and better methds, still seem to come up with a steady rate of sea level rise less than about 2 mm /yr. Even the IPCC reports give these figures.
And yet, year after year, the popular meme of accelerating sea level rises keeps doing the rounds. In 2001 the UK Chief Scientist announced the 6 m in 100 years claim. More than ten years on, has sea level risen the predicted 600 mm (2 ft)? Nope, just 17 mm or so.
Sea level is rising … very very slowly
The popular meme is put about by politicians who are stuck on stupid or who are mendacious malfeasants. They are ably supported in their mendacity by the ‘scientists’ of the EPA.
@Patrick Guinness
The problems in Thailand and Vietnam are due to other causes, mainly changed land use witthout proper consideration of the inevitable rain season.
The problems in Thailand have been known for a long time and handled in the traditional Thai way, ie ignored.
I don´t expect the problem to be handled in any other way, but I wouldn´t be surprised if the Thai Government come up with something like this:http://www.gogoflorist.com/blog/2012/10/hydroponic-rice-farming-in-thailand/
Is the TRF-problem properly adressed in this paper? If not, what are the consequences?
Brian Johnson UK says:
July 3, 2013 at 12:58 am
That BBC article should be entitled ‘Antarctic ice loss not caused by CO2′ since they admit:
These “ghost” lakes are kept in a liquid state by heat rising from the rockbed below and from the pressure of all the ice pushing down from above.
It seems that, gradually, research is finding that alarmist claims are not true.
Is anyone surprised?
@-“Hence, land-water mass accumulation compensated about 20 % of the impact of ice-melt water influx to the oceans.”
So according to this study the rise in sea level over the period in question was 20% less than might have been expected because much more water accumulated on land as a result presumably from the increased rainfall from the higher humidity and increasingly active water cycle.
Either that 20% offset will cease as the floods on land drain back into the oceans, adding an extra 20% to sea level rises in the future, or the flooding seen in various areas will persist and increase as a larger proportion of the melting ice gets dumped onto land by rainfall.
Strange, you’d have thought that if Trenberth’s heat was really hiding at the bottom of the ocean, then sea-level would be rising faster by now.
Seas would rise even if there was no temperature change in the sea water and global tectonics stopped. Sedimentation still continues. Tide gauges are not a reliable measure of sea level change because they include surface level changes due to isostatic equilibrium changes.
But the fact that all reliable sea level research comes to the same conclusion– the sea level changes are small and remain fairly constant. Another myth exploded.
johnmarshall says:
July 3, 2013 at 2:40 am
Tide gauges are not a reliable measure of sea level change because they include surface level changes due to isostatic equilibrium changes.
I beg to differ. Tide gauges are a direct indication of whether sea level rise actually matters.
You skeptics are ridiculous. You believe actual measurements, and not the models?
Yet the IPCC has told me that:
I have also been informed that 2000 to 2009 was the “hottest decade evaaaaaah”. I have also been told that thermal expansion is surely kicking in. I have also been told that the “missing heat” is in fact no longer missing, it can be found deep sea diving. My question is a simple and genuine one:
Q) Aren’t we supposed to see an acceleration in the rate of sea level rise by now??? Or is there some longer lag time???
izen says:
July 3, 2013 at 2:33 am
Either that 20% offset will cease as the floods on land drain back into the oceans, adding an extra 20% to sea level rises in the future, or the flooding seen in various areas will persist and increase as a larger proportion of the melting ice gets dumped onto land by rainfall.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And the plants will love it along with the added CO2 as the deserts go green
Thank Goodness sea level is still rising.
A cessation in sea level rise would be an indication the Earth is going into its next glaciation period.
Here is an article from last month by S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus at the University of Virginia. Is this wild speculation based on observations???
Whoa!!!