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.

Way out of my hobby’s area of interest but.. while doing a continued search on the Van Allen Radiation Belts I inevitably began coming across the South Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly references in articles.
Vuks will be pleased with the article I’m sure.
Now these guys know that correlation does not mean cause and put it to the tests..the article is not from Colorado heh..
The correlation also includes temp.
An interesting theory about the SAMA area beneath sea on the ocean floor rising and falling due to outer core processes. (counter clockwise rotation in outer core)
Geomagnetic South Atlantic Anomaly and global sea level rise: A direct
connection?
A. DeSantis a,b,n, E.Qamili a,c, G.Spada d, P.Gasperini e
a Istituto NazionalediGeofisicaeVulcanologia,SezioneRoma2,Rome,Italy
b Universita ‘‘G.D’Annunzio’’,CampusUniversitario,Chieti,Italy
c Scuola diDottoratoinScienzePolari,Universita deglistudidiSiena,Siena,Italy
d Dipartimento diScienzediBaseeFondamenti,UrbinoUniversity‘‘CarloBo’’,Urbino,Italy
e Dipartimento diFisica,SettoreGeofisica,Universita diBologna,Bologna,Italy
Abstract
We highlight the existence of an intriguing and to date unreported relationship between the surface area of the South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA) of the geomagnetic field and the current trend in global sea level rise. These two geophysical variables have been growing coherently during the last three centuries, thus strongly suggesting a causal relationship supported by some statistical tests. The monotonic increase of the SAA surface area since 1600 may have been associated with an increased inflow of radiation energy through the inner Van Allen belt with a consequent warming of the Earth’s atmosphere and finally global sea level rise. An alternative suggestive and original explanation is also offered, in which pressure changes at the core–mantle boundary cause surface deformations and relative sea level variations. Although we cannot establish a clear connection between SAA dynamics and global warming, the strong correlation between the former and global sea level supports the idea that global warming may be at least partly controlled by deep Earth processes triggering geomagnetic phenomena, such as the South Atlantic Anomaly, on a century time scale.
Highlights
► We compare South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA) surface and sea level in the last 300 years. ► SAA and sea level show a strong correlation supported by statistical tests. ► Increasing the SAA surface may have increased the inflow of radiation energy. ► The radiation energy may have warmed the atmosphere causing the sea level change. ► Alternatively magnetic field and sea level changes may have a common internal cause
ftp://ftp.ingv.it/pro/terrasol/space/DeSantis_et_al_JASTP_2012.pdf
Off topic but..
Wondering if Stephen Wilde has seen this article?
Observations of nitric oxide in the Antarctic middle atmosphere during recurrent geomagnetic storms
Newnham, D. A.; Espy, P. J.; Clilverd, M. A.; Rodger, C. J.; Seppälä, A.; Maxfield, D. J.; Hartogh, P.; Holmén, K.; Horne, R. B.
EGU General Assembly 2012, held 22-27 April, 2012 in Vienna, Austria., p.5445
Abstract
..Electrons in the range 10 keV to several MeV precipitate from the radiation belts in the subauroral zone at geomagnetic latitudes ≤ 75° , and particularly in the southern hemisphere and pole-ward of the South-Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly (SMA). Although in general the precipitating flux decreases rapidly with increasing electron energy this mechanism can produce NOx directly in the stratosphere and mesosphere. To establish high-latitude NOx production throughout the polar night, follow its transport, and determine its effects on the composition and chemistry of the mesosphere and stratosphere we have developed and deployed a 230-250 GHz passive microwave radiometer in Antarctica to observe NO, ozone (O3), and carbon monoxide (CO). Here we report ground-based measurements made from Troll station (72° 01’S 02° 32’E, geomagnetic latitude 65° ), a location equator-ward of the auroral zone, pole-ward of the area of radiation belt precipitation and the SMA, and deep within the polar vortex during the Austral winter. Our observations show enhanced mesospheric NO volume mixing ratio (VMR) reaching 1.2 ppmv at 65-80 km during a series of small recurrent geomagnetic storms in the 2008 polar autumn and winter. The Lomb normalized periodogram of the NO VMR time series averaged over 65-80 km for days 80 to 220 of 2008 (20 March to 7 August) shows a peak exceeding the 95% confidence limit at 27 days, matching the solar rotation period. For 2008 days 80 to 129 the radiometer NO VMR data is moderately correlated (r = 0.67, lag time of 0.9 days) with 90° telescope “trapped” electron count rate for the >300 keV channel of the SEM-2 MEPED instrument onboard the low altitude (300 keV electron count rate and a longer lag time of 4-5 days. The altitude profile of mesospheric NO, and ionisation data for the lower ionosphere from 30 MHz and 51.4 MHz widebeam riometers at SANAE IV station (71° 40’S, 02° 51’W) and the AARDVARK (Antarctic-Arctic Radiation-belt (Dynamic) Deposition – VLF Atmospheric Research Konsortium) network, suggests mesospheric NO is produced by ~100-300 keV electron precipitation with significant downwards transport in the southern-hemisphere winter-time polar vortex.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012EGUGA..14.5445N
Sea level change from 2005 – 2011? There is 22 years of sea level data from the satellites. Why be satisfied with cherry-picking a subset? You need much more data to discern an acceleration with statistical significance.
No statistical significance testing on acceleration. No meat to the argument.
Heck, if time period doesn’t matter, I could choose 2011 to present – a massive acceleration in sea level rise – but my point would be as specious as the above.
How much environmental risk is from these factors? I think every person in this planet should know about these. Let us share. Good thing you posted it here.
If you search around on the Colorado University Sea Level Research Group site, you will eventually run across the fact that they calibrate the satellites against a group of 64 tide gauges.
I’m having trouble finding out what those 64 PSMSL gauges are. if they are PSMSL gauges.
Does anyone know?
barry said July 6th at 6:02 am
Sea level change from 2005 – 2011? There is 22 years of sea level data from the satellites. Why be satisfied with cherry-picking a subset? You need much more data to discern an acceleration with statistical significance.
Data sets from 2011 and newer can be found on the CU Web Page
For example here’s 2013 Release 4
Older data can be found on the Internet Archives WayBack Machine
For Example here’s 2004 Release 1.2
If you take the slope (mm/yr) of the same time series 1992.9 – 2003.8 from both of those time series, you will find that over the past decade the slope has been bumped up from 2.6 mm/yr to 3.5 mm/yr. Do you ever wonder how things like this happen?
I’d love to have CU’s data all the way back to 1992, if you know where that’s available drop me a line.