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.
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Richard G raises an interesting point. At what rate does the deposition of silt, various detritus such as airborne dust etc and animal/plant remains add to the floor of the ocean? That it does is clear from the various sedimentary layers that geologists use to ascertain what went on in the past in ancient ocean basins. Another interesting consideration of SLR is that as the level rises, the opportunity for the ocean to infill previously dry areas such as valleys or shallow depressions rises. Over time this would offset any absolute rate of rise, but is it significant at decadal or even centennial scales?
I’ve seen no commentary on either scenario in my admittedly shallow readings.
Re Pamela Gray says: September 20, 2013 at 4:29 pm
Re Steve I says: September 20, 2013 at 5:05 pm
There might be another elephant in the room. See “Sea Level Change” (1990) at
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=1345
http://www.ebay.com/ctg/Sea-Level-Change-National-Research-Council-Staff-1990-Hardcover-/90456
The overall summary on Page 4, Overview and Recommendations is, “One hundred years from now [i.e.2090], it is likely that sea level will be 0.5 to 1 m higher than it is at present.” presuming change in CO2 precedes, or causes, change in temperature.
Next, the elephant. This reference brought up a technicality that I have not noticed being addressed in other forecasts / predictions / projections of future sea level. On Page 12, Overview and Recommendations:
[begin quote]
“The total volume of pore space in the top 100 m of the continental sediments – – 2.5 x 10^6 km^3 – – is equivalent to a rise or fall of sea level by 7 m. Hay and Leslie assume that rates of filling or discharge in these coarse sediments would be less than 13.5 x 10^3 km^3/yr. Thus more than 185 yr would be required to fill or empty an aquifer 100 m thick, corresponding to a rate of sea-level change of less than 4 mm/yr. Where only a slight imbalance exists between infiltration and discharge the times required for filling or emptying an aquifer 100 m thick could be tens to hundreds of thousands of years. For example, Meier (1984) estimates that global depletion of groundwater during this century has been between 1600 and 2400 km^3/yr, or 20 to 30 km^3/yr. At this rate, filling or emptying a 100-m-thick global aquifer would take 85,000 to 130,000 yr and the corresponding rate of rise or fall of sea level would be less than 0.1 mm/year.”
[end quote]
Table 2 on Page 12 provides sea-level equivalent of the pore space in various locations. For example, the pore space in coastal plains and shelves could soak up 1.7 meters of sea level rise. Chapter 9 covers this material in detail.
Also when measuring sea level, it is important to average over at least one tidal datum epoch (cycle) of about 19 years. This is the Metonic Cycle. This requirement would preclude using short records. “Understanding Sea Level Change” (2008) from the American Congress on Surveying and Mapping describes the process:
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/publications/Understanding_Sea_Level_Change.pdf
I’m living in an island, and the beach has changed so much over the last 40 years, no way to tell from the beach about any sea level change.
And my sea-side building has had about the same level of extreme high tides flooding all along.
I do show the Global Mean Sea Level Time Series (seasonal signals removed) (Sea Level Research Group, University of Colorado, 2013-09-04) graphic in my climate pages, but I follow it with “The Great Sealevel Humbug: There Is No Alarming Sea Level Rise!” (by Nils-Axel Mörner, 21st Century Science & Technology, Winter 2010/2011, Science and Public Policy Institute Reprint, 27 May 2011) http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/the_great_sealevel_humbug.html
He says 1.0 (± 1.0) mm/year, from tide gauges.
How can a satellite with no ground references achieve precision radar altimeter measurements?
Sea level rise was slower in the second half of the 20th century than the first half (Holgate 2007; reference within in the subsequent link).
What dominates sea level rise is easy to see, once avoiding the misleading graphing style done by near 100% of plots (including the examples in this article) and rather plotting the derivative as well: http://img176.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=81829_expanded_overview_122_424lo.jpg
“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.”
All of shared ideological-political environment. None trustworthy.
There’s not that much difference between CAGW-movement type environmentalists in France, Australia, or the U.S.
Those who think Hansen getting away with his ‘adjustments’ was great are those who tend to want to join NOAA climate departments now.
Russia has a different circumstance of how their historical far left, Russian communism, despite its faults in other ways, was not anti-industry. They don’t have the same ideological-political pole as much, which leads to more often honesty in climate research. I’d look more for data from Russian sources.
dbstealey says:
September 20, 2013 at 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.
———————————————————-
I’ll second that, although there’s still time for Margaret or Jai or the long-term idiots who should know better to post a late entry.
As someone posted a few days ago, it’s no wonder that the planet is burning if the oceans warm the atmosphere and the atmosphere warms the oceans.
I need to see if PG&E have found a way to tap into this perpetual motion machine and reduce my energy bill, as I had to turn on my heaters tonight in the SF Bay Area.
The same huge mismatch between the scale of claimed change and the accuracy of individual measurements also applies to the time series from surface temperature thermometers.
A few more uncertainties: 1. Satellites travel at speeds requiring relativistic adjustment of their on-board clocks. How accurate is this adjustment? Adjustments made GPS satellites (with higher orbits) are in microseconds per day (~38), when better than nanoseconds accuracy is needed.
2. One may ask as to stable is the earth’s crust? With continental plates constantly on the move, 12 – 18 earthquakes per day greater than 4.0, floating on a molten liquid mantle, what are the satellites actually measuring? Some information found suggested that one place rising about 5 mm/yr and five years later sinking by the same amount!
3. Also noted that the Envisat raw data had oscillations, but no trend, then following its failure, adjusted to 3 m/yr. We question, but never an explanation!
“Burntcoat Head in the Minas Basin, Nova Scotia, has the greatest mean spring range with 14.5 metres (47.5 feet) and an extreme range of 16.3 metres (53.5 feet).” A tad greater than 38 feet, but there you go. Try teasing 3mm out of THAT.
I recently got in a babble with some thermogeddanists over the effect of sea level rise on New Orleans vs the natural subsidence of the delta. It didn’t take long to launch into a storm of ad hominem for even daring to mention that that subsidence was orders of magnitude faster than the sea level rise. It didn’t matter, because Katrina was caused by climate change anyway. What was I thinking….!
Yacko, were you one of those people attempting some rhetoric terrorism in the argument about NOLA? Yes? Damn! I knew I detected a tone there.
So lets do a “sniff” test of these results (not the analyses. thats a different question) just to see if it makes sense. Lets take a step beck to the warming of the last glacial period of from say 10,000 years ago till bout 7000 years ago. And lets assume for simplicity that sea level rose between 350 and 400 feet during that period again for simplicity purposes although there are plenty of good studies that support this conclusion.
Why might we want to choose such a timeframe? If one were to go to the Lawrence Hall of Science in Berkerley, California, with a singularly beautiful view of the Bay and Ocean, and go to the lower floor one would find a stand alone computer counsel that demonstrates from different viewpoints the location of the shoreline with the Pacific over 1000 year increments. Should one go to the computer stand and check out the view of 10,000 years ago, one would see that there was no SF Bay. The shore line was 20 miles away out by the Farralon Islands, The current Bay bottom land itself was a giant meadow. There was obviously no need for bridges. Hard to imagine. But accurate and supported by great volumes of research on this point.
Why pick 7000 years as an upper data point? One only has to look at the geologic history of the development of urbanic civilizations located on the coast of any major world influenced water body. We (the world) don’t know of any one of which that is more than 7000 years old that settled on the coast. It would, and in some cases, probably was to not mess with Mother Nature and at the time believe that the sea level rise had stopped. But about 7000 years ago sea level did stabilize (that too is supported by research). The great 1000 to 1500 foot high ice sheets over the entire northern hemisphere extending all across the Northern US Continent across Europe had finally largely melted.
OK number guys lets take these simplified numbers and run them out. Again, I’m trying to be simple: 360 ft of sea rise relates to rise of about 109728 mm. That relates to about 36.6 mm per year over that 3000 year period.
The current consensus (above article) believes the current rise is 3mm per year. That forces the rest of us thinking public to accept that sea level rise today, after 7000 years of sea level stabilization and the thriving nature of all of our current and ancient port cities, that sea level rise could possibly be as much as 10% what it was during the tree thousand years when our towering glaciers in the northern hemisphere actually melted and rose sea level by 360 feet?
I’d say these conclusions based upon the current technological interpretation is likely overstated (to be kind) by a factor of 10 – at least. Antarctica isn’t melting, Greenland is already refreezing from last year, Mountain glaciers are so few around the world that compared to that 3000 year period of super melt that they would be a drop in a bucket – not to mention that not all of them are in recession – some are growing. Sea ice doesn’t equate in this discussion because it is already displacing the sea water it is floating on and Antarctic sea ice continues to grow.
Common sense. When you go to a carnival, do you really expect to have an even chance of knocking down all of the bottles and bringing home any prize? It appears that that is the scenario that we are watching and what they (the people who have bought in) expect us to buy into. In that scenario, its the people who buy in the most who apparently believe that they have the right to be allowed to walk away with the largest prizes. So far it appears to be working.
Make any sense?
“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.”
This needs some explanation. For whatever reason the basins are getting larger, Sea level is sea level. It isn’t something that is deemed to increase because its container has changed shape.
In any case how do they measure ocean basin size changes down with resolutions of the order of 100 microns?
Eco-geek: If Columbus sailed today instead of 1492 he’d have to sail twenty feet further. But for every spreading ocean somewhere, another is subducting. Sometime with a sea-level component attached…well, sort of. But Grist would have us believe that climate change caused the Great Tsunami. Well, sort of. As for thermal expansion, how much would come from a tiny fraction of a statistical degree, only Trenberth knows for sure. Says I, it ain’t much.
I do not know if any one has touched on this . But aren’t the ESA, NASA the Russians spending Billions and Billions (Oh did I heard that some where else? ) in trying to keep these things up there in the first place? And every time the sun has a “hiccup” our atmosphere expands and alters orbits of ALL, I mean ALL satellites? including the ISS? Hey I am not any kind of expert, but , looking at the whole thing I guess it is better to be a “pert” than an ex-pert, (thanks Pam grey you gave me a good laugh :-).
Sorry Pam , Pam Grey of course. Me bad. (OK my fingers) 🙂
To put this to bed, the catastrophic part, we need a simple investigation, a clear demonstration, just how bad, this sea level rise is.
I suggest compare Holland in 1500 with Holland today. Sea level then and sea level now. Now compare gross land area, population, agricultural yields, life spam, etc.
I think that will show clearly how dangerous Sea Level rise is.
Henry Clark
Thank You for your post and a most excellent link !!!
I put the blame for the sea level rise down to meteorites and comets. All those tons of water hitting the earth every years. It must make a difference … of .03mm/decade. That’s enough to be measured? Isn’t it?
I had never thought before about the effect of extreme tides and satellite measurements on sea levels. In some parts of eastern Canada and northern Canada, this can be over 10 metres during the spring tide phase.
I do not have a clue how the satellite data can be adjusted/manipulated to compensate for this to measure annual changes.
Anyhow, the original article and comments here indicate the actual sea level rise is probably a great deal less than the much quoted 3.3mms/year figure and probably closer to 1.6mms, less the groundwater extraction factor of 0.6mms/year.
In any event, post adjustment/manipulation satellite figures on sea level rises should be treated with a sack of salt.
All satellite orbits decay.
In other words, they continually edge close to the Earth, which in turn means it appears as though sea levels are rising. I assume some bright spark has found a way to compensate for this.
I assume such a fundamentally stupid mistake could not have been made.
But this is ‘climate science’, so anything is possible.
I suggest compare Holland in 1500 with Holland today. Sea level then and sea level now. Now compare gross land area, population, agricultural yields, life spam, etc.
And Singapore from before the late 20th century warming. It is 21% larger than it was in the 1960s, and is projected to increase in size by about 1% per year for the next 20 years. Increasing its land area by close to 50% in a single lifetime..
Which is why ‘climate refugees’ from rising sea levels is ludicrous. A problem that can be solved with a few shiploads of concrete blocks and sand. But not much money in that.
You can squeeze a tennis ball with your hand Earth must be the same .How do they know that the sea level going up and down is not just caused by the Continental Tectonic plates moving about.Earth Quakes and Volcanos on the ground Earth Quakes and Volcanoes under the sea.Continental land masses must be also moving up and down.
The Alarmist always mention the ancient Roman fishing capture penns on the coast in Italy being under water.So how do they know that was not caused by seismic activity.
“Measuring tools typically must have accuracy ten times better than the quantity to be measured, not ten times worse.”
The point you seem to be missing in this article is that the 3.2mm is not one measurement, subject to the uncertainties you discuss but the slope of a linear regression fitted to the whole period. This is similar (but not identical) to the mean average slope.
The uncertainty of that average rate of change is usually estimated to be the uncertainty of an individual measurement divided by the square root of the number of data points. That is how they claim “+/- 0.4mm/y”.
What needs to be examined is whether all the uncertainties are counted. As per usual in climate science they are not. Judith Curry’s uncertainty monster rears its head again.
One of the major problems is that the reflection comes primarily from the trough of the waves, so in order the estimate the mean sea level you need to know the height of the waves.. and you don’t.
Then there’s the gross “bias corrections” that were made to JASON results which were far larger than any declared measurement uncertainty and completely changes the record. How the results form successive platforms are stitched together is crucial in determining the long term fitted slope. That is where the fiddle factors largely determine the end result.
The quote from Dr. Carl Wunsch of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology seems the most pertinent bit :
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.”
Rudolf Kipp provided a link to his very interesting article.
It would make the basis of a very interesting guest post for WUWT.
Yes, this is ‘climate change’ science, you have to make the data fit your religion (and funding).
Although I think the alarmists will have to alter the propaganda rhetoric from “act now for our children’s sake before we reach the tipping point” to “act now for the sake of our great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grand children!
This is the new big scare!
As warming is getting less convincing, something else needs to be taken to terrorize the crowds.
See the October edition of National Geographic and a large article in the current issue of Nature dedicated to “Outlook for Earth” http://www.nature.com/news/climate-science-rising-tide-1.13749
Sea level is an excellent case:
– averages don’t mean anything;
– accuracies, precisions, biases can be argued about at length. Sceptics and deniers will be announced soon;
– causation can be attributed to anything, including anthropogenic misconduct;
– time scale are much larger than any electoral period. Thus there is no risk in pretending to “act responsibly” while it will be either futile or counter-productive to fight against potential non-events.
The only disadvantage is that it does not concern people living away from ocean shores, but if you get New York scared, then you can be sure that the entire World should take action (but don’t concentrate on Bangladesh, nobody would care too much).