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.
“If temperatures rise, water expands” – it’s not even that simple. After all, there is a reason ice floats. I would look at the temperatures water on Earth is, and see if, depending on the particular temperature, it expands or contracts. I think some might be amazed of the amount of water on Earth which contracts if heated.
Anyway, if measurements show discrepancies bigger than the ‘measurement’, and if the ‘noise’ is orders of magnitude higher than the ‘signal’, it means something is very, very wrong.
Rudolf Kipp said:
September 20, 2013 at 3:26 pm
The story of satellite sea level measurements is a strory of constant adjustments, always leading in the direction of higher values. To follow these adjustments, values before 2011 can be assessed via WayBackMachine.
…
Strange thing that. Whatever correction is being made to climate data, it always seems to lead in only one direction.
Yes indeed, I’ve looked at those WayBack Machine pages, and I find similar adjustments. The oldest page of data I have found
WayBack Machine CU Release 2004 1.2 Mean Sea Level Time Series
dates from 2004 and the slope calculates out to 2.6 mm/yr. Today that same time series of 1992 – 2003 as it appears in the
current data
is 3.5 mm/yr.
Somehow over the last ten years the rate of sea level rise for the period 1992 – 2003 has been bumped up 0.9 mm/yr.
the CSIRO is on notice sackings will be in near future . it cannot come quick enough
Yacko says:
September 20, 2013 at 3:58 pm
Here’s some science only Yacko will understand:
The sea level rise is largely due to whales. Back when whaling was the norm, there was no sea level rise. After whaling was largely banned, the whale population began to grow. It has been said that whale cows (those are the whale females, yacko) can reproduce up to 20 newborns every month. That birth rate has been happening for hundreds of years now due to anthropogenic reasons (banning whaling).
The seas are stuffed with huge whales, displacing mega-giga-exa gallons of seawater.
So you see Yacko, the Earth will not burn, we will all drown.
BAN the ban on whaling NOW!
What we are seeing hear with these patterns of adjustments, is similar to what we saw in the ‘production figures’ form the Soviet Union , they could only ever go up if the managers wanted to keep themselves of the gulags,
So were it was tractor production has gone up another 1000% ‘ we now see its ‘after adjustments its worse than we thought ‘ at least in the first case the people had good reason to lie , in the latter its all about keeping the money flowing in and keeping their cushy jobs .
While history has sympathy for those factors managers , its unlikely to show the same for the such ‘climate data manipulates’ who will be hopping their retired before their brought to book .
Jim of London said
Quote
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.
Unquote
Its a villa in the bay of Naples, the fish farm underneath it was for breeding and rearing of Lampreys. Contrary to your post, it is still operational. What that means, I dont know except that relative sea level there has not changed at all.
Removing water from an aquifer does not increase sea levels, unless you believe it will never rain again.
The bay of Naples is notorious for volcanic caused land movement. A few years ago the western side of the bay rose by 2m in less than a year. It was thought that the dormant volcano below was becoming active. Luckily this land subsided to its normal level. Panic over for now and all this was within 10 miles of the heart of Naples.
We also tend to ignore the fact that these satellite measurements, with all their problems, also require another major adjustment: Atmospheric pressure changes constantly.
Adjustments are based on models, of course:
Inverse Barometer Adjustment
The Inverse Barometer (IB) is the correction for variations in sea surface height due to atmospheric pressure variations (atmospheric loading). It can reach about ±15 cm and it is calculated from meteorological models.
No – the ‘special magic’ is just the use of basic statistics. For example, using a measuring stick with just 2 measurements at 5’6” and 6’ it would be possible to provide an accurate estimate of the mean height of US (or UK) males. Take a random sample of 1000 UK (or US) males, then use the stick to ‘measure’ their heights.
For anyone Below 5’6” record the height as 5’3” (63”)
For anyone Between 5’6” and 6’ record the height as 5’9” (69”)
For anyone Above 6’ record the height as 6’3” (75”)
If the sample is truly random then the number in each height category will be close to the following:
63” 91
69” 657
75” 252
Now calculate the average height
Average = (63*91 + 69*657 + 75*252)/1000 = 69.97”
The average height of US males is 70”. It’s all about sample size and knowledge of the data distribution.
wws says:
September 20, 2013 at 3:12 pm
but… but… if you want to increase the numerical accuracy of your measurement, don’t you just have to add zeros on the far side of the decimal point? That’s all it takes, right?
Just look – if you multiply, say. 0.3 by 0.3, your answer is 0.09, so you have just increased the accuracy of your measurement by a whole order of magnitude, just using a simple mathematical operation! Right? RIght???
WELL THAT’S WHAT JAMES HANSEN TOLD ME!!!
——————————————————————————————————————–
Any other place you might be stuck with one significant figure. Doesn’t seem that way in climate science.
markx says: “Inverse Barometer Adjustment
The Inverse Barometer (IB) is the correction for variations in sea surface height due to atmospheric pressure variations (atmospheric loading). It can reach about ±15 cm and it is calculated from meteorological models.”
That’s another sore point in the constant data manipulation games.
GMSL data used to be available with and without spicy IB sauce. Now there’s no choice. Everyone gets mayo and ketchup !
I have a lot of difficulty seeing how a barometer adjustment can affect the _global_ sea level. If it raises MSL in one area due to lower pressure the MUST be a corresponding drop somewhere else. Water is incompressible. If their global MSL data is not the same with and without IB that shows a bias in the processing.
Let me guess which way that bias plays and which version of the data they no longer make publicly available.
From John Finn on September 21, 2013 at 3:39 am:
For the purposes of your “demonstration” you apparently generated 1000 “random measurements”. For “knowledge of the data distribution” a standard bell curve is normally assumed.
It would have been embarrassing for you to use something truly random and end up with, say, 4ft 2in. So the “random measurements” need to have been generated around a certain number, as in the one for which you were demonstrating convergence.
Thus to get the results you were demonstrating, you would have started with the number you wanted, with the distribution you knew should be there, used those to generate 1000 “random measurements”, then separated the generated “random measurements” into some bins, and SURPRISE you got the number you started with.
Thus your demonstration is really a simulation showing the getting of the number you started with.
Plus the average height of a US adult male is 69.3″, which does not round off to the 70″ you stated.
Quick Ref: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/bodymeas.htm
Source Ref: Anthropometric Reference Data for Children and Adults: United States, 2007-2010, tables 4, 6, 10, 12, 19, 20, Table 12 on pdf page 22, document page 16.
Inverse Barometer Adjustment
The Inverse Barometer (IB) is the correction for variations in sea surface height due to atmospheric pressure variations (atmospheric loading). It can reach about ±15 cm and it is calculated from meteorological models.
The mass of the atmosphere doesn’t change. Therefore, differences in atmospheric pressure on sea level, average out to zero.
Making an barometer adjustment is just another opportunity for data fiddling adjustments. When I looked at this a couple of years back the adjustments were substantially upward of course.
Alternatively, it’s an admission the SL measurements aren’t representative of actual average sea level..
Jimbo says: @ur momisugly September 20, 2013 at 3:33 pm
There has to be an acceleration in the rate of sea level rise. For over 15 years I have been told that the WAIS is melting faster, the glaciers are receding faster, the oceans are warming faster, the hottest decade on the record etc. If there is no acceleration in the rate then am I going mad? ….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No they LIED!
Actual sea level rise Graph. The graph makes sense because of this Graph.
I should have said,
The mass of the atmosphere doesn’t change. Therefore, differences in atmospheric pressure on sea level, average out to zero, excepting land/ocean differences on an annual basis or less. Differences on a greater than annual basis would indicate some significant climate changes, but I am not aware of any data that indicates this is happening.
I thought the measurements were better than reported here. If they can’t resolve better than a centimeter, then only decadal measurements are worth anything. Sort of like the quantitation limit in chemical analyses, if the ql is 1, anything supposedly less than 1 is expressed as <1. Same with detection limits. It seems that in climate science if your ql or dl is 1 you can very happily report 0.01 or 0.001. Maybe that's why the projections for SLR are all over the place in height and time. These guys have lousy measurements.
All SLR hysteria assumes that everything is static but SLR and that humans lose the ability to adapt.
I don’t disagree with the conclusion.
But it seems to me that saying the rise was 3.1mm per year over the 10 year period of 1993to 2003 (31mm) is not implying that the annual measurement has an accuracy of 3.1mm.
Mike Bromly: When I lived in New Orleans in the late ’70’s. Everyone knew that a hurricane tracking like Katrina could dump water from Lake Ponchartrain into New Orleans East and the city. Everyone also knew that you had to maintain the pumps to keep flooding down. Most folks knew you didn’t need to be there if the situation warranted. They remembered Betsy in ’68. They also remembered Camille. Seems to me they didn’t remember much of that in 2005. If “global warming” means lousy government preparation, prevention (pumps and levee’s) and response by local and state, then it was global warming, if not then the pols were looking for a way to shift the blame.
From Philip Bradley on September 21, 2013 at 4:33 am:
But the concept of an inverse barometer adjustment makes sense.
Take a bowl or a baking pan filled with water and tightly cover with plastic film, no air pockets. Same atmospheric pressure. Then press down on a spot. Boom, you’ve made an area of higher atmospheric pressure. The water moves to the lower atmospheric pressure areas, the level drops at the area of higher pressure.
Likewise the reverse is true. Use your vacuum cleaner, intake (hose end) just above the film. Area of lower pressure, water level goes up as the higher atmospheric pressure elsewhere pushes the level down there.
The concept makes sense. The argument is in the amount of adjustment and its correct implementation.
And instead of plastic film and water, it’s much more fun to demonstrate this with Jello. Lime is good.
Land is irrelevant. It does not move. Even if there are more highs over land more lows over oceans it still can not raise _global_ MSL.
Also the mass of the atmosphere DOES change depending upon the quantity of water content. For example warmer periods like late 20th c. will have more total global atmospheric water content then cooler periods.
However, you comment suggested what may be going on.
They must have developed a model for the estimated sea level change as a fn of barometric pressure. If that model over-estimates the effect, then the distribution of highs and lows across land/sea could introduce an error in the global MSL.
The most rudimentary sanity check on such a model would be to compare the GMSL with and without the IB ‘correction’.
They are aware of this difference since they used to provide both datasets. That means they are deliberately obscuring a known error in thier processing by only supplying IB now.
Indeed if they only wish to provide on version it clearly should be non-IB since it is necessarily the other which is in error for the global average.
However, the CU team in charge of this data unashamedly involved in presenting the data as climate porn rather than objective science. What they present as “sea level” is not above the water and increasingly so every year.
It is a sea level based global warming index NOT a record of sea level as the name pretends.
I have a few no_IB files from last year when both were still available. I’ll have to compare with what is still there. I think there was another incompatability last time I did that because of the huge changes made to JASON data.
KDK : “But the concept of an inverse barometer adjustment makes sense.”
Sure but it HAS to average out to zero globally. Having an IB adjusted GMSL is nonsense.
Here is plot of rate of change of sea level compared to atm temperature (UAH TLT).
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=524
These were pulled at the dates indicated so there maybe other “corrections” applied in the meantime as well as one being no_IB and the later one IB_adjusted.
In any case we can the _massive_ changes being made to the dataset. which have to make it totally unreliable as a long term measure of anything.
I stopped looking at GMSL as a result of the blatantly non scientific manipulations going on .
So,doesn’t cold water(ice)expand more than hot water does?Maybe due to a phase change to vapor?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phase_diagram_of_water.svg
Thanks for the interesting articles and comments.
Philip Bradley says:September 21, 2013 at 4:33 am
Inverse Barometer Adjustment
The Inverse Barometer (IB) is the correction for variations in sea surface height due to atmospheric pressure variations (atmospheric loading). It can reach about ±15 cm and it is calculated from meteorological models.
The mass of the atmosphere doesn’t change. Therefore, differences in atmospheric pressure on sea level, average out to zero.
Excellent point, thank you.