Sea Level Rise: Climate Change and an Ocean of Natural Variability

English: se level rise by 2100
CSIRO’s sea level rise projection by 2100 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Guest essay Steve Goreham

Originally published in The Washington Times

Sea level rise is the greatest disaster predicted by Climatism, the belief in catastrophic climate change. Today, leading scientific organizations support the idea that the ocean level is rising due to man-made emissions. Further, they claim to be able to measure ocean level to a high degree of accuracy. But a look at natural ocean variation shows that official sea level measurements are nonsense.

The theory of man-made climate change warns that human emissions of greenhouse gases will raise global temperatures and melt Earth’s icecaps, causing rising oceans and flooding coastal cities. Former Vice President Al Gore’s best-selling book, An Inconvenient Truth, showed simulated pictures of flooding in South Florida, the Netherlands, Bangladesh, and other world locations. Dr. James Hansen predicted an ocean rise of 75 feet during the next 100 years. 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in 2007, “Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 mm per year over 1961 to 2003. The rate was faster over 1993 to 2003: about 3.1 mm per year.” This translates to a 100-year rise of only 7 inches and 12 inches, far below the dire predictions of the climate alarmists.

But three millimeters is about the thickness of two dimes. Can scientists really measure a change in sea level over the course of a year, averaged across the world, which is two dimes thick?

Today, sea level is measured with satellite radar altimeters. Satellites bounce radar waves off the surface of the ocean to measure the distance. Scientific organizations, such as the Sea Level Research Group at the University of Colorado (CU), use the satellite data to estimate ocean rise. The CU team estimates current ocean rise at 3.2 millimeters per year.

clip_image004

The organizations AVISO (Archiving, Validation, and Interpretation of Satellite Oceanographic Data) of France, CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization) of Australia, and NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) of the United States agree with the University of Colorado that seas are rising three millimeters per year. Given the huge natural variation in global sea level, the three millimeter number is incredible. The fact that four different organizations have arrived at the same number is suspect.

As Dr. Willie Soon of Harvard shows, ocean level variation is large and affected by many factors. If temperatures rise, water expands, adding to sea level rise. If icecaps melt, levels rise, but if icecaps grow due to increased snowfall, levels fall. If ocean saltiness changes, the water volume will also change.

The land itself moves continuously. Some shorelines are rising and some are subsiding. The land around Hudson Bay in Canada is rising, freed of ice from the last ice age. In contrast, the area around New Orleans is sinking. Long-term movement of Earth’s tectonic plates also changes sea level.

Tides are a major source of ocean variation, primarily caused by the gravitational pull of the moon, the sun, and the rotation of the Earth. Ocean water “sloshes” from shore to shore, with tides changing as much as 38 feet per day at the Bay of Fundy in Nova Scotia. The global average tide range is about one meter, but this daily change is still 300 times the three-millimeter change that scientists claim to be able to measure over an entire year.

Storms and weather are major factors affecting satellite measurements. Wave heights change by meters each day, dwarfing the annual rise in ocean level. Winds also change the height of the sea. The easterly wind of a strong La Niña pushes seas at Singapore to a meter higher than in the eastern Pacific Ocean.

Satellites themselves have error bias. Satellite specifications claim a measurement accuracy of about one or two centimeters. How can scientists then measure an annual change of three millimeters, which is almost ten times smaller than the error in daily measurements? Measuring tools typically must have accuracy ten times better than the quantity to be measured, not ten times worse. Dr. Carl Wunsch of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology commented on the satellite data in 2007, “It remains possible that the database is insufficient to compute mean sea level trends with the accuracy necessary to discuss the impact of global warming—as disappointing as this conclusion may be.”

Scientists add many “fudge factors” to the raw data. The same measurement taken by each of the three satellites, TOPEX, JASON-1, and JASON-2, differs by 75 millimeters and must be corrected. As a natural adjustment, researchers add 0.3 millimeters to the measured data, because ocean basins appear to be getting larger, able to hold more water, and reducing apparent ocean levels.

Tide gauges are also used to “calibrate” the satellite data. But gauge measurements are subject to errors of one or two centimeters, again many times more than the sea level rise to be measured.

Clearly, the official three millimeter sea level rise number is a product of scientific “group think.” Not only is this number far below what can be accurately measured, but all leading organizations support this nonsense number. Could it be that our leading scientists must endorse sea-level rise to support the ideology of man-made global warming?

Steve Goreham is Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of the book The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

160 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Go Home
September 20, 2013 4:49 pm

The effects of sea level around the globe are largely effected by the changes in gravity from the different points around the earth. Since the earth gravity is not distributed equally around the globe/ellipsoid, the effects are dramatic (IMO) on the comparative height of the sea level, which can be as much as 200 meters between two points on the earth.

chris y
September 20, 2013 4:54 pm

I posted this over at Dot Earth to address concerns over coastal cities like Miami or NYC or Boston being unable to adapt to sea level rise:
In 1630, Boston area = 783 acres
Landfill additions- Back bay, west cove, mill pond, great cove, south cove
Total as of 1910 (assumed the same today)= 1904 acres
Land area gain per year = (1904 – 783)/(2013 – 1630) = 3 acres per year
Sea level rise 1630 – 2013 = 650 mm, or 1.7 mm/year
So, with SLR of 1.7 mm/yr, Boston was able to *add* 3 acres/year using shovels and horses. Now we are worried about Boston drowning, with local SLR at 2.6 mm/year. What vapid stupidity.
What I find surprising is that almost 60% of Boston is built on catastrophic anthropogenic landfill.

Mac the Knife
September 20, 2013 4:55 pm

Satellites themselves have error bias. Satellite specifications claim a measurement accuracy of about one or two centimeters. How can scientists then measure an annual change of three millimeters, which is almost ten times smaller than the error in daily measurements? Measuring tools typically must have accuracy ten times better than the quantity to be measured, not ten times worse. Dr. Carl Wunsch of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology commented on the satellite data in 2007, “It remains possible that the database is insufficient to compute mean sea level trends with the accuracy necessary to discuss the impact of global warming—as disappointing as this conclusion may be.”
This is the 30 second fact-based rebuttal that each of us needs to use, when challenged about claimed AGW induced sea level rise.
Mtk

Bruce Cobb
September 20, 2013 4:56 pm

Yacko says:
September 20, 2013 at 3:58 pm
SLR to date is largely thermal expansion, some glacier melt. Not only are the rates of these likely to rise, but at critical points new mechanisms – such as ice shelf collapse – will add their impact.
But you will keep fiddling while the planet burns, won’t you?

Alarmist drivel, based on Beliefs, not facts, such as the fact that an ice shelf floats on water, displacing it. Now, when it melts it does add slightly more volume than it displaces, due to it being primarily fresh water, and less dense, but it is hardly worth bothering about.
The planet is just fine; it’s you planet bedwetters that are messed up. And what have you got against fiddling, anyway? It’s a fine art.

Steve I
September 20, 2013 5:05 pm

To Pamela Grey :That’s the best description ( and funniest) I’ve ever seen! Thank You!

tom0mason
September 20, 2013 5:20 pm

Yacko says:
September 20, 2013 at 3:58 pm
SLR to date is largely thermal expansion, some glacier melt. Not only are the rates of these likely to rise, but at critical points new mechanisms – such as ice shelf collapse – will add their impact.
But you will keep fiddling while the planet burns, won’t you?

Please understand that on this 4.5 billion year old planet much, much, more extremes of CO2 levels, sea levels, and temperatures have been experienced. Indeed humans were around during the last bunch of fluctuations (Ice ages, medieval warm period, etc) and survived. That is because humans have a remarkable capacity to adapt, and we can build tools to enable us in adapting.
The idea that there is a ‘tipping point’ that the planet can not recover from is an obscene double think idea that supposes such fragility on the earth as to be illogical. ‘Tipping points’ are for the poor unfortunates who have difficulty in not spilling their beer.

James Brown
September 20, 2013 5:35 pm

Yacko
“SLR to date is largely thermal expansion, some glacier melt. Not only are the rates of these likely to rise, but at critical points new mechanisms – such as ice shelf collapse – will add their impact.”
Sure? (hint, Google Archimedes)
This is a scientific blog, some rudimentary science education would help you achieve more benefit from it.

Michael Jankowski
September 20, 2013 5:45 pm

DD More – as the sea level rises, the surface area will expand. It won’t rise straight-up unless it’s against a sea wall or a vertical cliff. Think of a beach. The deeper the water gets, the more of the beach it covers. Hence, the wet basin has expanded. I think that’s what they’re referring to.
But as Richard G points-out, some of the volume of oceans is filled with sediment from rivers. So some sea level rise is due to this. So…

Michael Jankowski
September 20, 2013 5:47 pm

Hi Jacko,
Did you know that SLR has been going on for over 20,000 years?
That’s lots of fiddling.

September 20, 2013 5:58 pm

rabbit says:
September 20, 2013 at 3:49 pm
According to this recent paper from the NOAA
the total sea level rise over the last seven years has been 1.6 mm / year, with an uncertainty of .8 mm / year.
————–
That must be due to the fact that there has been a slight cooling trend since 2006/07.

TomRude
September 20, 2013 6:15 pm

Notwithstanding the suicide of Envisat… even if there was a legit problem in the last 2 years, the first years were contradicting the Jason manufacturing…

RoHa
September 20, 2013 6:18 pm

Look, stop fussing about the details.
We’re doomed, right?
Either we’ll be toasted, or frozen to death, or crushed by migrating trees, or drowned by rising seas, or torn apart by tornadoes. Doesn’t matter.
We’re doomed. OK?
DOOMED!
Got it?

Bill Illis
September 20, 2013 6:18 pm

Church and White 2011 is usually cited these days as the model for what the tide gauges are showing for sea level.
But they only used a subset of the total gauges which are available (you can probably guess why). For example, in the 2008 year, they only used 49 tide gauges while there are 343 tide gauges in the PMSL database for 2008.
I downloaded the whole database. This is what all of the tide gauges show.
http://s2.postimg.org/xcp9tsz6x/Sea_Level_Measurements_PMSL_1930_1980_2009.png
You can’t measure sea level by satellite from 1332 km high orbits. The satellite measurements are just garbage algorithm generators. And no one is going to pay $500 million to put up another one of these satellites if they are just showing that there is no problem. They have to show a rising trend or we would just start using the 350 tide gauges (and hundreds of GPS stations now out there) which are already burning up resources. Why spend another $500 million and $20 million/year operating just to show what people on the ground are already measuring.

Anna Keppa
September 20, 2013 6:22 pm

Can someone explain this chart for me?
It’s from http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLevelRise/documents/NOAA_NESDIS_Sea_Level_Rise_Budget_Report_2012.pdf
Table 1. Trends and Seasonal Fit for Components of Sea Level Rise and Total Sea Level as
Measured by Altimeter
Trend (mm/year)
Steric (Argo) 0.2 ± 0.8
Mass (GRACE, Paulson GIA) 1.0 ± 0.2
Steric + mass (Paulson GIA) 1.2 ± 0.9
Total sea level (Jason-1 and Jason-2) 1.6 ± 0.8
Determined with a least squares fit of a sine, cosine, trend, and constant over January 2005 to
December 2011. The error bounds represent the 95% confidence interval obtained from the least
squares fit.
*****
Can someone tell me why a 0.2 +/- 0.8 represents a “measurement”? Don’t those results say that Steric could equal plus 1.0 mm, or minus 0.6 mm, at a 95% confidence level? What kind of “data” is that?
Is it legitimate to simply sum the Steric and Mass trends, as appears to have been done here?

pat
September 20, 2013 6:25 pm

o/t but i have trouble posting on Tips. Der Spiegel (can’t find english version as yet) on German politicians wanting the IPCC to ban the Pause:
http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/ipcc-verhandlungen-politiker-gegen-wissenschaftler-beim-uno-klimareport-a-923507.html

Go Home
September 20, 2013 6:26 pm

Speaking of oceans… The ACE for the N Atlantic as of 9/21/13 (assumes no change to ACE over the next 24 hours) will be 23.055. This ACE level will be the 3rd lowest for that day since 1950. The 10 lowest ACE levels on 9/21/xx include the following:
DATE 9/21/2013
1962 9.2925
1994 11.25
2002 24.3425
1970 24.4825
1982 26.815
1986 31.9925
1954 43.1125
1978 54.435
1974 56.12
1990 65.0175
All in time for AR5 release. That and with the low tornado record ready to be smashed (assuming average tornado’s for the rest of the year), record rise in low Arctic ice extent, plus others, it is almost as if Al Gore is set to personally releasing AR5 to the world.

Goldie
September 20, 2013 6:30 pm

Ok, so I don’t normally do this. The claim is that sea levels rose 3cm over a decade, which averages out at 0.3cm per annum. Maybe 0.3 cm is beyond measurement credibility, but a 3 cm change isn’t so much. I think this piece is a case of reduction ad absurdum. Happy to hear why I am wrong.

Sun Spot
September 20, 2013 6:49 pm

How do planetary wide ocean level measurements compensate for Earths varying gravitational areas as mapped by GOCE. I would assume due to Earths molten core and the moons gravitation effecting Earths core, this gravitational shape is dynamic. Accuracy to 3 mm per year NOT likely.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBzBikb5fso <– GOCE satellite video

September 20, 2013 7:24 pm

The factor in sea level rise that the UNIPCC alarmists are ignoring is pumping ground water. This water comes out of the ground and finds its way into the ocean. They keep this quiet because there is a worldwide shortage of potable water and a halt to using groundwater would impact poor nations and require additional energy use.

September 20, 2013 7:39 pm

The thickness of two dimes. Isn’t that about the same as a plug-nickle?

September 20, 2013 7:41 pm

Rising sea levels? Recent San Francisco Chronicle articles featured a full “Chicken Little”, predicting sea level rise of over three feet by 2100. However, if an intrepid Chronicle reporter strolled near the Golden Gate Bridge, they could read the longest tide record in the Western Hemisphere (or go to http://tinyurl.com/pa957yv). There they would find that from June 30, 1854 to the present, the annual mean sea level has risen from 6950mm to 7080mm, or five inches (3.22”/century), and that the rate of rise has slowed since 1990. At the average rate, it will take over 1,100 years to increase three feet.

Leo G
September 20, 2013 8:15 pm

How do planetary wide ocean level measurements compensate for Earths varying gravitational areas as mapped by GOCE.

I doubt that the measurements even correct for variations of the Chandler nutation.

September 20, 2013 8:16 pm

Yacko says:
“But you will keep fiddling while the planet burns, won’t you?”
I nominate that for the stupidest comment of this thread.
In a world of climate imbeciles, there is immense competition. But Yacko is still in the running.

gopal panicker
September 20, 2013 8:19 pm

i was under the impression that sea levels fell by 7 mm due to recent heavy rains in Australia

TalentKeyHole Mole
September 20, 2013 8:23 pm

A good report.
Some facts.
‘Global mean sea level’ in NOT an observable! It IS derived, an estimate, through least squares after variations of tides (atmosphere, ocean and solid body), winds, precipitation/deposition, ablation/evaporation (variations on the theme of Dynamic Topography), ocean water salinity and effects from bottom bathymetry with Earth Rotation Variation and Glacial Isostatic Adjustment are removed.
In concept, a simple implementation of reductionist reasoning.
In practice, … very messy. And that is for many reasons from all of the above.
So what do we make of this?
Well, for me, and I am the only one who can answer to me, … I have no worries regarding this topic at all.
And that is my statement to ‘Policy Makers’: do not worry at all, … about this!
QED