This is a bit of a bombshell to those that claim sea level rise is accelerating and certain. From the University of Southampton:
Back to the future to determine if sea level rise is accelerating

Scientists have developed a new method for revealing how sea levels might rise around the world throughout the 21st century to address the controversial topic of whether the rate of sea level rise is currently increasing.
The international team of researchers, led by the University of Southampton and including scientists from the National Oceanography Centre, the University of Western Australia, the University of South Florida, the Australian National University and the University of Seigen in Germany, analysed data from 10 long-term sea level monitoring stations located around the world. They looked into the future to identify the timing at which sea level accelerations might first be recognised in a significant manner.
Lead author Dr Ivan Haigh, Lecturer in Coastal Oceanography at the University of Southampton, says:
“Our results show that by 2020 to 2030, we could have some statistical certainty of what the sea level rise situation will look like for the end of the century. That means we’ll know what to expect and have 70 years to plan. In a subject that has so much uncertainty, this gives us the gift of long-term planning.
“As cities, including London, continue to plan for long-term solutions to sea level rise, we will be in a position to better predict the long-term situation for the UK capital and other coastal areas across the planet. Scientists should continue to update the analysis every 5 to 10 years, creating more certainty in long-term planning — and helping develop solutions for a changing planet.”
The study found that the most important approach to the earliest possible detection of a significant sea level acceleration lies in improved understanding (and subsequent removal) of interannual (occurring between years, or from one year to the next) to multidecadal (involving multiple decades) variability in sea level records.
“The measured sea levels reflect a variety of processes operating at different time scales,” says co-author Dr Francisco Calafat, from the National Oceanography Centre. He adds, “One of the main difficulties in detecting sea level accelerations is the presence of decadal and multi-decadal variations. For example, processes associated with the North Atlantic Oscillation have a strong influence on the sea levels around the UK over multi-decadal periods. Such processes introduce a large amount of ‘noise’ into the record, masking any underlying acceleration in the rate of rise. Our study shows, that by adequately understanding these processes and removing their influence, we can detect accelerations much earlier.”
Co-author Professor Eelco Rohling, from the Australian National University and formerly of the University of Southampton, adds:
“By developing a novel method that realistically approximates future sea level rise, we have been able to add new insight to the debate and show that there is substantial evidence for a significant recent acceleration in the sea level rise on a global and regional level. However, due to the large ‘noise’ signals at some local coastal sites, it won’t be until later this decade or early next decade before the accelerations in sea level are detection at these individual tide gauge sites.”
The findings of the study, funded by the Natural Environmental Research Council (iGlass consortium), are published in this months issue of the journal Nature Communications.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Impossible! I heard the science was settled.
I presume, then, that they will train their model on data from before 1890 or 1830 exclusively, then run it forward to present to validate? Using the actual data, not the adjusted?
Thought not.
I would love some really good data on Sea Level Rise and Ocean Heat Content. I notice these are two areas where the alarmists love to camp since nothing else is going their way.
Last time I checked all the satellites that read sea level say “all is normal” of course it all depends to the real experts at the Whitehouse.
” Such processes introduce a large amount of ‘noise’ into the record, masking any underlying acceleration in the rate of rise. Our study shows, that by adequately understanding these processes and removing their influence, we can detect accelerations much earlier.”
Translation: “The raw data does not show what we expected and wished to see. Therefore, we must statistically massage the data until the revised data cooperates.”
Where have I heard that one before.
Ok…waidaminnut.
One author says that it’ll take another 15-20yrs to be able to figure out what’s going on, and then another author basically says there’s so much noise it’s MASKING the accelerated sea level rise.
““By developing a novel method that realistically approximates future sea level rise, we have been able to add new insight to the debate and show that there is substantial evidence for a significant recent acceleration in the sea level rise on a global and regional level.”
How is it that when something is being masked, it’s always in their favor?
I sure wish I was as smart as these folks…then I wouldn’t have to work anywhere near as hard as I am now.
Downright clevah.
Jim
I always had my doubts about the ability to measure sea level rise to within a couple of millimeters in one year. I thought 10 years at least to be able to see something worth interpreting.
The Church et al 2005 study found no increase in the rate of SLR (1.8mm year) over the 20th century and the Leclercq et al 2014 glacier study found a higher retreat in the first half of the 20th century compared to the post 1950s period.
Exactly the opposite of increased co2 causing dangerous SLR nonsense. I have counted many recent studies that have found a deceleration in SLR, not an acceleration.
BTW why can’t I paste a link in the comments window, I can on other sites?
Sea level rise is real. The waterline of my kayak is a few mm higher than a couple of years ago. Of course it could be due to the extra bit of protruding roundness that’s somehow been added to my belly. But that’s just anecdotal. It’s not real science like people who we trust because they’ve got letters after their name.
analysed data from 10 long-term sea level monitoring stations located around the world..
===
Does anyone know which 10 those are?
====
and show that there is substantial evidence for a significant recent acceleration
=====
yep, I would have guessed you would do that
=====
However, due to the large ‘noise’ signals at some local coastal sites
=====
That’s called subsidence…and what “some” local sites…you’re only dealing with 10
So they are setting out to “show” evidence for a significant acceleration………….
It kinda, sorta sounds like they are saying ‘nothing scary is happening, wait ten more years, we have no evidence, but we will ‘.
Maybe I have all this wrong. Are these the details? … the Dalton minimum was the coldest period in the entire Holocene. After which -totally normal for an inter-glacial – the seas began to rise/glaciers melt (delayed by Tambora 1815). Glaciers melted throughout the 19th century … very minor upticks 1900-1910 and 1990-2000, and now a minor downtick 2004-2014
and in the last 20 years, despite a billion tons of CO2(?), no acceleration. rate still at 3.5 inches a century
oh and it turned out recently the IPCC exaggerated Himalayan melt by a factor of 7.
them: “pretty please wait ten more years, give us money for at least 10 more years”
I hope these folks have something more constructive to do than wait for 15 years to determine if the sea level is rising by 1mm/year or 1.1mm/year. However based upon their paper which basically said nothing, I suspect my hopes are in vain.
Sigh, including the University of Western Australia. Why is it that one automatically cringes if you are an Australian when you see that institution’s name attached to anything involving climate change research?
“… show that there is substantial evidence for a significant recent acceleration in the sea level rise on a global and regional level …”
I am sure their models and adjusted data (tortured??) will show what the people handing out grants want to see. It is worse than we thought!
This post just shows once again that most everyone involved in climate “science” have no idea what the scientific method is. It is just Fracking sad.
OK, so if it won’t be detectable at any individual site for 10 years, then this is the opportunity for them to give us the list of their predictions. Or does that cost extra?
Interestingly, the lead author Haigh is associated with a number of studies on sea level that don’t sound too alarmist (upper bound of 1.8 mm per year), but Rohling (unfortunately the one now in Australia) is an alarmist and associated with such objective and non-political screeds as Hanson et al.’s PLoS (2013) “Assessing “Dangerous Climate Change”: Required Reduction of Carbon Emissions to Protect Young People, Future Generations and Nature”
The article appears to be open access is anyone wants to follow this up:
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140414/ncomms4635/full/ncomms4635.html
We can’t wait that long. The Arctic will be ice free by then, with no more polar bears. Bees will be gone. Crop yields down 30%. Our children will no longer have snow to go sledding on. We must take drastic measures to severely cut the use of all fossil fuels and CO2 emissions now!!!
But wait, it looks like there is hope after all. In this story of the government that cried catastrophic climate change wolf, it looks like the wolf will become extinct before any of these things happen.
Hurray!! The humans will be able to live in peace, harmony and prosperity as the plants and creatures celebrate the death of the wolf and dine on massive benefits from increasing CO2.
Incredible, so just what part of this ‘climate science’ is actual science?
Anyhow, at least the clowns who wrote this nonsense are blatantly honest about wanting another 6+ years grants.
Er, like, we don’t know because of all the other stuff. Fund us for another 15 years or so and we’ll let you know.
Surely if at 2030 you will be able to predict sea level rise acceleration for 2100, surely in 2014 you will be able to predict sea level acceleration for 2084, no?
What is that result? Or does it only work for years to two significant figures.
“whether the rate of sea level rise is currently increasing”
Yeah the committee checked to be sure they had everything rising at least. How in heck can you find if rate of sea level rise is CURRENTLY increasing by looking at 15 to 20yrs more data? I hope they don’t receive a cheque each year for this study. How are they sure sea level will even be rising at all by 2030? What prevents it from falling. Now that you have found it is accelerating in 2030, how do you decide what it will be 70 yrs later. We’ve let the mice play for too long when we see the preconceived nonsense that they spout with no shame.
Only 10 stations? Seems like a small sample size.
Many commenters here have missed the subtlety of this paper’s purpose. I just finished an essay for the next book on this subject, so here is a synopsis.
It has been a CAGW article of faith that SLR is accelerating. (Hansen, 5 meters by 2100, etc.) Alas, NOAA in the satellite era says it is not, rather constant at 2.8mm/ yr. Worse, the satellite data can be interpreted as saying it has been decelerating since 2003-2006 (pick your own cherries) to 2.4mm/ yr. Still worse, the closure problem (SLR must equal GIA plus melt plus thermosteric volume expansion) says probably less than 2.4. It was supposed to be about 3.1 and accelerating. This has occasioned two ridiculous peer reviewed explanations. First, that the heavy rains over Australia and elsewhere in 2011 caised that years indisputable dip. The water had not returned to the sea. Trenberth, of course. The only problem is, the recorded rainfall (whether or not it returned to the sea) equals less than half of the dipwater volume. The other explanation is that an El Nina biased period dumped extra rain on Australia, the Amazon, and the Congo since 2006 that has not yet returned to the sea. (Climate Etc discussed this recently). Also falsifiable easily. Australia has been in net drought, and the Amazon and Congo basins cannot retain extra rainfall by their fundamental hydrology.
So the only option left other than to admit the pause has slowed meltin and thermostatic rise is to say, well, we just cannot be sure until 2030. Move the goalposts. A climb down of sorts. Does paint AR4 into a falsified corner. Does make the previous papers look even more stupid than they already were.
Current sea level – half way up a duck.
My prediction is that in year 2100 it will still be half way up a duck.
Gary in Erko says: May 9, 2014 at 3:43 pm
Sea level rise is real. The waterline of my kayak is a few mm higher than a couple of years ago. Of course it could be due to the extra bit of protruding roundness that’s somehow been added to my belly.
Relax, it ain’t all that bad. You just forgot to apply the Glacial Isostatic Adjustment.