From the University of Southampton:
The tides they are a changin’
Scientists from the University of Southampton have found that ocean tides have changed significantly over the last century at many coastal locations around the world.
Increases in high tide levels and the tidal range were found to have been similar to increases in average sea level at several locations.
The findings of the study are published online in the journal Earth’s Future.
It is well documented that global average sea levels are rising; but tide levels, have generally been considered to have undergone little change on decadal time scales. It is also often presumed that tides will not change much over the next century. As such, long-term changes in tides are not accounted for in many practical applications and scenarios affected by rising sea levels.
The team used a dataset of 220 sea level records from around the world, which ranged in length from 30 to 150 years. By extracting the tide data from the other components of sea level, they were able to isolate changes in 15 tidal levels by looking at different records of high and low waters from the tidal signal.
Lead author Robert Mawdsley, postgraduate research student in Ocean and Earth Science, says: “We find that at many sites around the world significant changes in tidal levels have already occurred, and at some sites the magnitude of the changes are comparable with the increase in global mean sea level through the 20th century.
“For example, increases in average high water of over one millimetre per year have occurred around the world, including Calais in France, Manilla in the Philippines, Wilmington in the USA and Broome in Australia. Increases in mean high water of approximately half a millimetre per year occur at UK sites, such as Heysham, Millport and Port Patrick, all of which are around the Irish Sea. Decreases in mean high water and tidal range occur at many sites around the UK, including Milford Haven, Lowestoft and Ilfracombe. This has potential impacts on energy extraction, such as the tidal lagoon in Swansea Bay.”
“The magnitude and global distribution of changes in tides have been hinted at before,” said co-author Dr Ivan Haigh, Lecturer in Coastal Oceanography. “However, here we have been able to assess changes in different tidal levels, which are used for many practical applications. Tides exert a major influence on the coast, affecting coastal flooding and erosion, navigation, tidal energy extraction, sediment movement and the extent of species in coastal ecosystems. Therefore, the changes we have identified have wider ranging practical and scientific implications, particularly if they increase in the future.”
“The cause of these changes is complex and appears to be a combination of mechanisms from local to global, with the primary driver being the rise in sea level associated with climate change,” says co-author Dr Neil Wells, Associate Professor in Physical Oceanography and Meteorology. “Further research is required to more fully understand the mechanisms causing these changes and to understand how tides might further change in the future.”
###
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This is what happens when people asks questions (to the head of the EPA). The tide is changing alright.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24DP1uG-MEM
A well-deserved roast …
Wow, wow, wow!
Thank you for that. Made my weekend. 😉
Excellent link! I watched it 3 times and passed it along…
Thanks Beethoven, you made some lovely music for us tonight!
As noted in the attached video clip, the Obama EPA Chief does not know whether planetary temperature is rising faster or slower than the GCM models and hence declined to answer the senator’s question. Astonishing.
Correct answer: Planetary temperature is not rising and has not risen for 18 years which is a paradox.
She appeared to be stumped by that difficult highly technical question and I has half expecting that she would take her fifth amendment right to refuse to answer as the answer might be incriminating.
A good illustration of the sort of nincompoops that push the climate hysteria. The EPA stinks, McCarthy is a witless fool if she can peddle that sort of horse grunt to people who can think.
Thank you! It also made my weekend.
That woman clearly knew the answers to those basic questions. She did not have the integrity to give a truthful answer. All her answers were evasions. Because the true answers would have been, shall we say, inconvenient.
I assume the chairman asking the questions was a Republican. I strongly hope the next US president is a Republican (I’m British). I don’t agree with all Republican ideas, but it does seem that Republicans tend to be more realistic – and knowledgeable, judging from this clip – about global warming.
Thinking about it, I’m not sure which is more extraordinary: her deceitful and shameful evasions or the chairman’s dogged persistence and knowledge of climate science.
Chris
The insanity of the EPA:
My company was threatened with a fine of nearly two million dollars for wording on a label that could not be read without the use of a magnifying glass.
We were forced to remove the fifty cases from our inventory and dump the product in our dumpster.
The product, manufactured in the US, had a label that contained the unauthorized use of the word “antibacterial”.
Rather than repackage, destroy, or, blackout the offending word the manufacturer exported the product to Mexico. Their distributor sold it back to the US market, it even cleared customs.
In the end we payed hundreds of thousand dollars in legal fees and the EPA extorted twenty thousand during the worst economic downturn since the great depression.
It comes as no surprise that Gina McCarthy is a know- nothing, or that she tried to bluff Sen. Sessions, who actually has a pair.
It was a real treat to get up this morning and watch the video again with a fine cup o’ coffee.
Can’t say I enjoy that clip. It makes me sick and then some. But so very important.
So now we have indisputable evidence that the EPA head is unaware of the gross disagreement between the models and observation over the past 18 years. If the world made any sense, every media organization in the world would be running a story illustrating her ignorance and the actual size of the disagreement.
Instead, pin drop silence from the Fourth Estate.
Correction
A good illustration of the sort of
nincompoopsideologues that push the climate hysteria. The EPA stinks, McCarthy is a witless fool if she can peddle that sort of horse grunt to people who can think.No one should be surprised by this woman’s ignorance. Most of us posting here have known for several years that climate alarmism isn’t about saving the planet. It’s about money, power and control.
EPA HEAD: “What does it matter” if the models don’t work?”
That’s the same as saying the science does not work. Incredible.
Beautiful!!! The vapid head of EPA forced to use ‘appeal to authority’ evasions rather than answering direct questions of fact vs AGW fiction…..
Just beauuuuuuutiful!
Pettitio principii: Why did AlaGorical spend $4M on sea front property, & why are sea front property prices not tumbling? Last I heard, property prices at Sandbanks, Dorset, UK, were the only thing rising, along with envy at such a fab location to live!!!
Years ago, at a CAGW lecture held at Birch Aquarium in La Jolla, I asked the question: how high up Mt. Soledad should I buy in order to assure that my great grandchildren own beachfront property. Predictably, the response was crickets.
BREAKING NEWS: Google is going to start ranking websites not based on search words or topic but ‘according to science truth rankings’ as designed by global warmists on the West Coast.
Antony Watts was already on FOX TV talking about this terrible decision. Already, if you test Google using various anti-global warming terms you might get one or two websites like this one but mainly you get a bunch of global warmist fanatics lying about the weather telling readers to avoid websites like this one.
So switch to a different search engine and tell all your friends. I stopped using Google ages ago. Eventually they will get the message.
Wayne:
So switch to a different search engine and tell all your friends. I stopped using Google ages ago. Eventually they will get the message.
—
That is not the point Wayne, this is Google acting with premeditation to deliberately insert the thin-end of the censorship wedge to staunch all informed public debate, and reach around facts to favor a dump truck full of official lies.
First they come for …, then they come for …, then they … there will be an endless stream of this from here on, throttling of inconvenient facts and elimination of informed intellectual discussion.
This is the online equivalent of Google, the biggest corporate on the internet taking a digital filter Molotov cocktail to the global public library and burning it down.
Google is not the internet, it is a corporate the is not happy with the billions $$$ it made from the internet, and now wants to dictate terms of its access and Balkanise information, further accentuating the disconnect on basic issues of public policy.
Alexandria V2.0.
Not acceptable.
The MSM has lost millions upon millions of viewers as they gradually discovered that the news being presented was either censored by omission, by minimization or by spin. Google will ultimately find out that people who can’t find what they are looking for, because it has been censored, will turn to other search engines.
what a bunch of syndicalist socialists.
Catastrapharians and their sister leftist causes are getting louder, more blatant and have been calling out for assaults and attacks. Its gone too far.
The feedback loop of money from DC, to these groups and then back to DC is fraud on a grand scale.
If climate change is temperature change, and the temperature has not changed, so the water should not have expanded and ther is no extra water from polar melting … Where is the water coming from?
You have your explanation within your hypothesis. The Climate is warming, and sea levels are rising, per the physics of thermal expansion and melting land ice.
Yeah – but the climate has not warmed for 18 years and Antarctic ice is growing steadily. So where is the thermal expansion and melting ice coming from?
Antarctic SEA ICE has increased, but since that is temporary floating ice, it has no impact on sea level. The LAND-BASED ice does indeed seem to have decreased, adding net water to the oceans.
The climate has been warming slowly the past 18 years, per both satellite and surface measurement, and heat uptake of the oceans continues (over 90% of the incremental heat energy from increased greenhouse effect due to increasing CO2 levels goes in to the oceans).
Also, overall global land ice has been in a multidecadal decline, further raising sea levels.
Where did Earth’s water come from in the first place? Ice comet impacts over billions of years – or does the current conjectured flux of such not support the volume?
warrenlb,
You appear to assume that the oceans are in thermal equilibrium whereas (due to their immense thermal inertia) the oceans have been warming since the end of the last ice age and will continue to warm until the next ice age. The important factor is that the RATE of rise has been relatively constant since tide guage measurement began.
As many noted the European Envisat satellite data unequivocally showed that sea level was falling (fell about 10 cm). Shame the Envisat satellite mysteriously stopped working and odd that the raw sea level data was mysteriously changed to show sea level is increasing.
Odd that material balance (ice melting) plus expansion does not agree with party line sea level rise. The problem however a seagate problem rather than a scientific issue.
P.S. They (the silly warmists) are not going to be able to hide significant in your face global cooling or the drop in atmospheric CO2.
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/man-made-sea-level-rises-are-due-to-global-adjustments/
http://spacenews.com/european-space-agency-declares-envisat-satellite-lost/
On the east coast of Australia I have several benchmarks and the oldest shows that the highest astronomical tides in recent years are 6 – 12 inches lower than they were during the period from 1946 to 1953.
69 years and still waiting for SLR.
slr is not changing its rate of rise in any significant way for the past 150 years.
warrenlb, the thermal expansion from this tiny rise doesn’t gel with sea level rise – it just doesn’t. The last 17 years have been virtually flat.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/wti/from:1998/plot/wti/from:1998/trend
tjfolk
Antarctic SEA ICE has increased, but since that is temporary floating ice
___________________
Yeah, we all know that tjfolk – you think we are idiots here or something? But are you really claiming that Antarctic sea ice is continuing to increase, and yet no additions have ever been made to land ice accumulations at the same time? Where is your evidence for that implied observation?
R
“Where is your evidence for that implied observation [ of mass loss from land-based Antarctic ice]?”
R, I don’t see what it would be so difficult to imagine that sea ice might be doing one thing while land ice is doing another. There is plenty of info on the internet about this topic. you might start here: http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/ice_sheets.html
Also the oceans have warmed over the past 18 years, leading to thermal expansion.
That’s debatable.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1998
I seem to recall a report highlighted at WUWT a few years back estimating a significant amount of sea level rise from the draining of land based aquifers.
Really? And what data is there to support that? How many fixed location measuring stations are there in the oceans? And are they evenly spatially distributed?
I’m not aware of any. Scientifically how do you support your statement?
@Reg Nelson
The amount of groundwater extracted annually is well-known (relatively), so it’s easy to compute how much it adds to rising sea levels. (IIRC, it’s about 25%.)
Even after ‘necessary adjustments’ no acceleration in the rate of sea level rise has been detected. So what’s up? Where is my thermal expansion? Where did the glacial meltdown go? These are devastating results for alarmists. Sea level has been rising for over 15,000 years.
warrenlb, I do hope that you explain to alarmists that:
a) Sea level has been rising for over 15,000 years.
b) There is no evidence of an acceleration in the rate of sea level rise this century. Some people argue that there has been a deceleration.
Sea-level should always rise due to the perpetual erosion of land.
Local isostasy?
Maybe the soil of the earth ( being compressible ) is sinking.
…so like thousands of interested amateurs, they looked data already available online and describe what was there with some AGW biffle-gab thrown in for good measure. Man, I work too hard to make a living!
So if mean high water rises that would imply that mean low water has dropped, to give the greater range, and vv. Implied in the release, but not stated.
Research the british admiralty”s program in the nineteenth century as big as the space program, all around the world they marked low tide dry rocks and catalogued the lot, many are around Australia, they are still dry at low tide. One easily assessable site in Tasmania has high and low tide marks nothing has changed.
Good point. However, and here are the words:
“We find that at many sites around the world SIGNIFICANT changes in tidal levels have already occurred, and at some sites the magnitude of the changes are comparable with the increase in global mean sea level through the 20th century.
“For example, increases in average high water of over ONE MILLIMETRE per year have occurred around the world, including Calais in France, Manilla in the Philippines, Wilmington in the USA and Broome in Australia….”
I’m having trouble understanding why 1 mm (0.001 Metres) is significant.
Compared to average sea level increases over the last century known exactly how? I mean, they’ve got to be kidding me. Before the satellite era, there is no data, nor any possible way of obtaining data, about tide levels or mid-ocean sea levels. The only way we can infer anything at all about the sea level in the year (say) 1925) is to look at coastal tide gauges. And we cannot infer anything precise or accurate from that because of the comparative paucity of the record and because the record does not and cannot retroactively correct for things like land uplift and subsidence, variations in the trade winds and pressure that cause water to pile up (or not) on certain coasts, local variations due to thermohaline circulation and thermal expansion not connected with any secular change. Our beliefs about past SLR are inferences made from the tide gauge record at the coasts because we can’t make precise measurements mid-ocean — even if you tether a tide gauge to the ocean bottom with a perfectly unstretchable rope, the slightest current shift and the natural catenary shape of a massive rope would cause errors much larger than any possible measured effect.
So I have no idea what they think they are doing. Creating a model that shows that the model fits the model, I imagine. Past tide gauge data matches up remarkably well with the average of past tide gauge data. I am profoundly surprised.
rgb
R.B., adding to the complexity is 16 year lunar cycles.
Bingo, We have a winner.
Tree rings to model sea levels.
I mean we got millions (maybe billions) of trees RIGHT NOW, and we’ve been growing trees an awfully long time, so maybe trillions of trees in earth’s history.
Surely somebody could cut & paste some “proxy” tree ring data for sea levels. How hard can this be?
The fact that trees are not in the ocean and rings have absolutely nothing to do with sea level just proves tree rings are objective.
Why somebody else hasn’t thought of this is really disturbing. I mean, this is settled science.
/sarc (barf)
Robert, I usually have a lot of respect for what you have to say, but here I think you fall way short of your usual quality.
RGB says: “So I have no idea what they think they are doing. “
It might help if you (and other readers) actually read the original paper, rather than just speculating. The paper can be found here. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014EF000282/pdf
“Before the satellite era, there is no data, nor any possible way of obtaining data, about tide levels or mid-ocean sea levels.”
Not a problem, since they make no claims about mid-ocean sea levels, nor do they consider how mid-ocean sea levels might be affecting the tides and any given coastal location.
“Compared to average sea level increases over the last century known exactly how?”
By looking at the records from each location individually. They have decades of data at a given location. They can easily fit a trend line to that series of data points to see if that site has had increasing, decreasing or steady mean values. They are NOT comparing with any sort of global mean sea level changes.
“Creating a model that shows that the model fits the model, I imagine.”
Again, why “imagine” rather than looking what they actually wrote? You are following the clear path toward strawman arguments. They do a bit of curve fitting to deal with things like spring tides/neap tides, but there is no “modeling” of global sea levels.
“Our beliefs about past SLR are inferences made from the tide gauge record at the coasts because we can’t make precise measurements mid-ocean”
Then it is a good thing that they were using those tide gauge records at the coast, and not some model of unknown mid-ocean sea level. They are basically saying “We have the long record at a given location on a given coast. Let’s see what is happening there. Then lets do that 220 times at different locations around the world.”
Basically they are find that the range between high tide and low tide is getting larger at many locations and smaller at fewer locations. The tides are not simply rising over all, they are getting more extreme (more often than they are getting less extreme). And since people are often interested in the highest high tide, having larger ranges on top of rising sea level would result in higher high ties that would be predicted simply from any increase in mean sea level. Thus recognizing that the RANGES are changing and not simply the mean will allow better understanding of what might happen in the future.
“Our beliefs about past SLR are inferences made from the tide gauge record at the coasts because we can’t make precise measurements mid-ocean”
and form that you get mm levels of accuracy, and you believe that is possible , how ?
I worked with Southampton à l’epoque. This is unbecoming of them. It’s shit science yet again OR bad PR writing.
Or its correct.
It seems to be not wrong.
But still meaningless.
The world has been warming since the last Ice Age The glaciers aren’t advancing anymore (good).
The sea level has been rising consistently. So the glaciers are melting. As we should expect. This leads to three conclusions:
1) The next ice age hasn’t started.
2) The land movements up and down are either too slow to affect the measurements or are dwarfed by the change from melt and expansion.
3) The rate of sea level rise has not increased or decreased with the increase in atmospheric CO2. QED: CO2 i not that significant
god is angry with you for choosing the wrong religion, warren, or for choosing no religion. You’re going to burn in hell. How do you know that’s not true? Your logic demands a life of repentance, warren.
(There’s as much data proving the burn in hell hypothesis as there is that CO2 emissions have warmed the climate. And, after all, all the best religion-science models agree.)
@Patrick Guinness Frank.. Where is your vaunted scientific analysis? It seems to have fled, only to be replaced by sputtering and personal attack. Maybe that’s why you didn’t get your submittal accepted.
Try explaining how it is correct using real genuine facts. RGB already blew it out of the water hee hee. Stop trolling and gives us facts. If you know what they are , of course.
My comment directly extrapolates your logic, warren. As you call that sputtering, then by your own diagnosis that’s what you’re doing.
The (not) science of your position was refuted elsewhere and more than once.
Much of the problem is how much PR is used by the climageddonites.
Increases in mean high water of approximately half a millimetre per year occur at UK sites, such as Heysham, Millport and Port Patrick, all of which are around the Irish Sea. Decreases in mean high water and tidal range occur at many sites around the UK, including Milford Haven, Lowestoft and Ilfracombe.
My thoughts exactly. I think I’ve got this right. From their claim, I deduce that the UK may be gradually (very gradually) tilting downward and will eventually fall in to the Irish Sea bit by bit as the sea laps up around the north western coastline. This must be true because, from their dataset of 220 sea level records, they point out that coastal towns further south are witnessing a decline in average high water. So, whilst the Irish Sea is seeing average high water rise, the Celtic Sea and North Sea are going down. Even more bizarre is that Calais, just 19 miles away from the UK (on the other side of the English Channel), is witnessing a one millimetre per year average high water rise!
http://i.imgur.com/788Yqfk.jpg
If the figures are true . . . .
For the Irish Sea
Half a millimetre rise per year means 1cm every 20 years.
1cm every 20 years means a 10 cm rise in 200 years.
10 cm rise every 200 years means a whopping 1 x metre rise will occur in 2,000 years time.
So, in 20,000 years time, the coastline of north western UK will be under 10 x metres of water!
For the English Channel
The French side (Calais) will see a one millimetre rise per year meaning that, in 1,000 years from now, they will be under 1 x metre of water.
Conclusion
Climate Change is causing the sea to BEND. Can I have my grant money now?
Final Thought:
Despite trying to read the full Southampton University report, it would appear that the paper is “currently unavailable while we conduct essential maintenance”. I smell a rat.
It is my understanding that the UK landmass is bending/tilting down at to right.
rms. Yes, read this years ago. Scotland was depressed(!) by the weight of ice during the last ice peak, and is still rebounding. I should think it’s small though.
I was in Scotland two years ago Ghost of Big Jim, it snowed on the first day of summer, wouldn’t you be depressed.
I don’t get it. If sea levels have risen, why have tide levels not changed?
You don’t get it because Anthony intentionally posted a confusing headline. All this study has found is that the average difference between high tides and low tides has not changed — both have risen. This would seem obvious as long as the orbit of the moon hasn’t changed. (And I haven’t heard any AGW theory suggesting we are changing the moon’s orbit, although there is probably some whacko out there who has said this.)
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fktwop.com%2F2013%2F07%2F27%2Fthe-lunar-nodal-cycle-and-its-effects-on-climate%2F&ei=bzf6VKjMMsr1oAS5moCYCg&usg=AFQjCNFfd8la2UxJ8Yuyrz3wAPqVR4zt4Q&sig2=Fi2ond6wEnCkNBlWF1DJ1g
Barry, see the link above. You are the wacko. There is an 18.5 year lunar cycle that has long been a study of interest affecting tides, weather, ocean currents etc.
Barry, for your “wacko” consumption…
(The lunar cycle consists of a 2.2 cm median amplitude)
Sea-level rise rates have become important drivers for policy makers dealing with the long-term protection of coastal
populations. Scenario studies suggest that an acceleration in sea-level rise is imminent. The anticipated acceleration is
hard to detect because of spatial and temporal variability, which consequently, have become important research topics. A
known decadal-scale variation is the 18.6-year nodal cycle. Here, we show how failing to account for the nodal cycle
resulted in an overestimation of Dutch sea-level rise. The nodal cycle is present across the globe with a varying phase and
a median amplitude of 2.2 cm
Barry, link to the above study.
http://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-11-00169.1
I heard somewhere that the moon is receding from the earth at about 4 cm. per year. Over time, that would decrease the average difference between high and low tides.
“intentionally”, I think not, but confusing yep.
David,
Thanks for the link!
I learned something today about the 18.5 year long sinusoidal cycle of lunar effects on earth ocean tide levels.
Mac
Mac you are welcome. E.M. Smith did some good work on this as well if you are interested.
(Barry, sorry for the snark)
Я тоже не слышал об изменении орбиты Луны но this Changes Everything по принципу домино потому,что космос это система все частицы в которой движутся по своим законам синхронно с другими по этому любое изменение любой частицы системы приведёт к её нарушению.Рост внутреннего ядра http://go.nature.com/w6iks3,http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31322817 деформируя кору изнутри http://shar.es/lnjxx0 меняет форму Earth.От формы планеты зависит её прецессия,либрация и скорость вращения вокруг своей оси.Изменение этих показателей и учитывая,что формирование Луны связано с ядром Earth http://www.ipgp.fr/pages/02050408.php однобокий рост внутреннего ядра неминуемо нарушит равновесие в системе и сместит центр тяжести в системе Земля-Луна и Луна начнёт приближаться к Earth как к самому близкому источнику притяжения.На monumental Earth Changes также указывает изменение гравитации http://news/discovery.com/earth/global-warmingearths-gravity-dips-from-antarcticice-loss-141001.htm.Earth уже изменила форму своей орбиты http://wp.me/p7y41vDW.
[I also heard about changing the orbit of the moon but this Changes Everything in a domino effect because the cosmos is a system in which all particles are moving under its own laws in sync with the other on this, any change of any particle system will lead to its inner core narusheniyu.Rost http: / /go.nature.com/w6iks3,http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31322817 deforming crust inside http://shar.es/lnjxx0 changes the shape of the planet depends Earth.Ot form its precession, libration and the speed of rotation around its osi.Izmenenie these indicators and given that the formation of the Moon is associated with the nucleus Earth http://www.ipgp.fr/pages/02050408.php lopsided growth of the inner core will inevitably disrupt the balance in the system and shift the center of gravity in the system Earth-Moon and the Moon will begin to approach the Earth as to the closest source prityazheniya.Na monumental Earth Changes also indicates the change in gravity http://news/discovery.com/earth/global-warmingearths-gravity-dips-from-antarcticice-loss-141001.htm.Earth has changed the shape of its orbit http://wp.me/p7y41vDW.%5D
To David A at 3.56
Thank you for this link. This is top notch science. I guess we can expect such on sea level concerns from the Netherlands.
I get two things from the them.
1. They wrote “Coastal policy shifting from observation-based reactions to scenario-based anticipation (Ministerie Van Verkeer en Waterstat, 2009) it is, therefore interesting to compare trends with predicted rates.” I love the way they wrote “scenario-based anticipation”. Indeed.
2. I don’t know who did the statistical analysis but it is absolutely top notch. The presentation of their results, including not only the confidence interval, but much more importantly the prediction interval, is perfect. This places the IPCC data analysis to shame and I may add many silly plots I see on climate blogs, and yes including this one on occasions.
“The cause of these changes is complex and appears to be a combination of mechanisms from local to global, with the primary driver being the rise in sea level associated with climate change,” States that it is complex, local and global and then simplifies it – climate change!!!! Says it all really. Can’t wait for the follow up and review in 10 years!!
When exactly has the earth’s ocean water level ever been static? For numerous reasons ice at the poles waxes and wanes over time as it has always done. Historically the planet has experienced sea level rise up to 200 meters – what’s new? We’re in a interglacial period. Moreover, plate tectonics contribute to sea level rise and fall as it does on land. In fact where I live and work in Alberta was once part of the North American Inland Sea. We dig up aquatic dinosaurs from that period of time at the oil sands – all can be seen at the Tyrrell Museum in Alberta, Canada. But it appears it is the usual answer to all the problems on this planet – climate change. Who didn’t know that was the answer?
Hope they explained the maths like they did here,
Which is a really, really good video and I suggest that ANYBODY who wants to talk about SLR watch it if only so that they can gain some slight appreciation for how difficult a problem it is now, with GRACE, GPS, and satellite-based telemetry. Suggesting that tidal gauge data from 1890 is sufficient to resolve SLR to high precision is intrinsically absurd. However, the deepest problem with the paper is that I, at least, cannot see any possible way that they could know the sea level relative or absolute in 1890 by any means but tide gauge data. So stating that tide gauge data corresponds, on average, to our beliefs about average sea level in 1890 is pretty much like saying:
Yes, stupid, the average is obtained from the tide gauge data so you betcha that there is a correspondence between the two right up to the point where we had a second way of measure SLR via satellites. You can see the two records together here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trends_in_global_average_absolute_sea_level,_1870-2008_%28US_EPA%29.png
and — wait for it — we have a second way of measure it only since roughly 1993. So allowing for the most generous interpretation of “the last century”, for 22 years out of 100 we have some vague clue about global sea level obtained from global observations from space, although there is plenty that could be said about that and the difficulty of comparing satellite oranges with tidal gauge apples (see the video, you’ll see what I mean on both sides of the problem). Before 1993 — 78 years of it to 1915 — we only know SL via tidal gauges with any precision at all and hence there cannot possibly be any surprise that average SLR corresponds well, on average, with tide gauge data.
What I can’t tell is whether the people who published this study are that clueless, or if they think they have some way of contacting the dead with a ouija board or using coral reefs in the pacific as some sort of proxy for non-coastal SLR. Oh, wait, coral reefs are coastal, back to ouija.
rgb
Satellite altimetry isn’t so hot either. The specs for the newest bird (Jason 2) are available on line. The design repeatable accuracy at any location is to within 3.5 cm. (you have to take into account confounding stuff like waves, since the sea is almost never level anywhere, doh!). The design precision is a random drift of not more than 1mm/year. Essay Pseudo Precision goes into some of the ludicrous recent papers purporting to explain a possible recent SLR slowdown based on Jason 2 and its predecessors— since warmunist dogma says SLR is accelerating. How can anyone know, if the average rate before an artificial GIS correction ( for water volume, not sea level) is and has been about 1.8mm/ yr, versus repeatability of 35mm and annual drift of 1mm?
Separating flysh*t from ground pepper. And that is before the closure problem, wherein the sum of estimated ice sheet loss plus thermosteric rise never sum to more than 2/3 of supposed SLR of 1.8mm/yr—that is, unless you suppose SLR has slowed to less than 1.4mm/yr, and that either ice loss has accelerated, or thermosteric rise has accelerated, (or both) despite the now 18 year pause. Contradictions wrapped in contradictions. Riddles wrapped in enigmas. This awful paper calls for more research- whole careers spent wallowing at taxpayer expense in imprecise data with error bars an order of magnitude larger than the annual results, in order to create climate alarm about SLR man has been adapting to for centuries. Defunding would be appropriate.
This is the problem with climatologists,they seem to have ‘Tunnel Vision’ and speculate on findings from one observation without looking at the broader picture.
Rud,
How can anyone know, if the average rate before an artificial GIS correction ( for water volume, not sea level) is and has been about 1.8mm/ yr, versus repeatability of 35mm and annual drift of 1mm?
Separating flysh*t from ground pepper.
Wow! Didn’t realize it was that bad….
Mac
Yes, it really does illustrate the problems involved in measuring sea levels. To start talking about mm since 1850 does nothing to promote credibility. As someone pointed out earlier, the UK is a case in point … Parts rising, parts falling, erosion, deposition. What are we measuring?
I’ll take tidal gauge data for my sea level, thank you.
Gravitational tidal forces induce resonant waves and interference patterns in not only the oceans but also the earth crust and mantle (Earth tides), and atmosphere. The Moon orbit is dynamic, ocillating near and far and north and south, in and out of faze with the sun’s gravity. Quite simple really, no? Relatively.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_tide
phase
Everyone searches for one, stable accurate metric to relate the others to. So far, no luck.
Oh, I just got the science behind the findings. They are using 220 sea level records from around the world. Under the Australian BoM methodology they can use any 220 records to support their findings and when reviewing they can use a different set of 220. Now that is real science.
It seems Mr Watts has the title of his article wrong. Here is what the article actually says: “Scientists from the University of Southampton have found that ocean tides have changed significantly over the last century at many coastal locations around the world.” and “Increases in high tide levels and the tidal range were found to have been similar to increases in average sea level at several locations.”
What was he thinking?
warrenlb
The answer to your snarky question probably lies in this quote from Anthony’s comment”…average sea levels are rising; but tide levels, have generally been considered to have undergone little change on decadal time scales…”.
Apparently, unlike every other computer on the planet, yours didn’t show the highlighting on this (and only this) text.
My post was not snarky, nor intended to be so. It points out a contradiction between Watt’s title, vs what the article actually says.
And the highlighted text you reference refers to what has been considered to be true PRIOR to this new research, ie. that tides haven’t been rising. The entire point of the article is to cite new research that concludes that tides ARE rising with sea levels.
The highlighted text is poorly worded –and it confused Mr Watts, apparently.
Chip, I’m with Warrenlb on this. To say that tides “have undergone little change,” and then say the tides “have changed significantly” is a contradiction. The highlighted text talks about what has “generally been considered” about tide levels previous to this study. Because of this assumption, “tides are not accounted for in many practical applications…” So what they are saying now is that their research refutes the old assumption and shows that “ocean tides have changed significantly.” I think Anthony took the highlighted text as a conclusion from the study when it appears to be a poorly stated previous assumption made by scientists that they are refuting. This study is actually being used to overturn that old assumption. Why else would the lead author, Robert Mawdsley, say this:
“We find that at many sites around the world significant changes in tidal levels have already occurred, and at some sites the magnitude of the changes are comparable with the increase in global mean sea level through the 20th century.”
I’m sorry, but that doesn’t match what Anthony said in the title. You can’t read the study’s conclusion that the magnitude of the changes are “comparable” with the increase in sea level, and then say “average sea levels rising; but tide levels, have undergone little change.” That is a contradiction. One of them has to be wrong.
Yeah, I know the psper is c**p, but Anthony’s headline is pretty dodgy…..
Louis
It’s a blind by warrenlb. Strawman, irrelevent.
Steven, I’m not saying the paper is correct. I think it has problems. I’m just saying that Anthony’s headline does not reflect what the paper is actually trying to claim.
Warrens a troll but bere i think he right i thought title was miss leading
Excellent article. The huge discrepancy between ocean sea level rise measurements usually involving complex use of satellite survey information with claims that the rate of sea level rise is increasing is inconsistent with and sharply contradicted by global wide NOAA tide gauge data.
The NOAA tide gauge data which addresses the measurement of the rate of sea level rise at coastal locations shows no acceleration of sea level rise rates anywhere in the world with many of these measurement locations having records of 100 years duration or longer.
The latest NOAA tide gauge data regarding the rate of sea level rise updated through 2013 is addressed at:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/16/latest-noaa-mean-sea-level-trend-data-through-2013-confirms-lack-of-sea-level-rise-acceleration-2/
This article notes the following regarding rate of sea level rise assessments in the UN IPCC AR5 WGI report and discrepancies between NOAA tide gauge data and satellite ocean sea level rise measurements:
“The UN IPCC AR5 WG1 report claims that:
“It is very likely that the mean rate of global averaged sea level rise was 1.7 [1.5 to 1.9] mm yr–1 between 1901 and 2010, 2.0 [1.7 to 2.3] mm yr–1 between 1971 and 2010, and 3.2 [2.8 to 3.6] mm yr–1 between 1993 and 2010. Tide-gauge and satellite altimeter data are consistent regarding the higher rate of the latter period. It is likely that similarly high rates occurred between 1920 and 1950.” (3)
As discussed in detail below the latest mean sea level rise trend data from NOAA simply does not support IPCC assertions that mean sea level rise trends are increasing since 1971. The IPCC report describes the fact that individual location tide gauge measurement values can vary significantly from global average values (4) generally because of the consequences of location specific topography and geology related impacts.
But what the UN IPCC AR5 WG1 report completely fails to address is the fact that the long duration period NOAA mean sea level trend data behavior represent constant and unchanging linear records over time which present major challenges to IPCC claims of increasing sea level rise rates since 1971. The NOAA data is simply unsupportive of IPCC claims of increasing rates of sea level rise in recent decades.
Furthermore the unchanging and constant linear NOAA mean sea level trend records from worldwide tide gauge station data versus the UN claims of increasing rates of sea level rise based on satellite sea level data suggests the latter outcome is driven by anomalous analytical artifacts associated with the measurement and measurement analysis methodology not reflective of real world outcomes.”
Those pushing climate alarmists views of sea level rise acceleration have no support at all for these claims based on extensive empirical sea level rise data measured at hundreds of coastal locations worldwide.
Personally I blame the Southampton geothermal plant, for any change to tide in Southampton – the geothermal plant is extracting heat from deep under the city, at a cost of millions of dollars, to power a single shopping centre. No doubt the thermal contraction from the reduced heat load will cause the “tide” to appear to rise… 🙂
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power_in_the_United_Kingdom#Southampton_District_Heating_Scheme
>>>”…at a cost of millions of dollars, to power a single shopping centre, ”
Eric, this is untrue. I don’t think you even read the wikipedia article your posted? You seem to have a habit of posting misinformation here.
From the wikipedia article you posted:
“The scheme now heats a number of buildings in the city centre, including the Southampton Civic Centre, the WestQuay shopping centre, Royal South Hants Hospital, Solent University and the Carnival offices”
“The electricity generated from the scheme is used by Associated British Ports via a private electrical connection to the Port of Southampton, with any surplus electricity sold back to the grid”
Or from http://www.cofely-gdfsuez.co.uk/solutions/district-energy/district-energy-schemes/southampton-district-energy/ :
“Users include TV studios, a hospital, a university, a shopping centre, a civic centre, residential buildings and several hotels.”
Its a pathetic waste of money Bevan. OK so a few other buildings get a bit of scratch sometimes. They’re a long way from powering the city. The geothermal plant is a white elephant, if it was economically viable they would have built more of them.
I used to live in Southampton, the plant was a curiosity, nothing more.
here is the original article:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1002/2014EF000282/
Well that’s a good study. Wyndham has moved from the top end of WA to the NSW South Coast (fig 9). Do I need to look further?
The next IPCC report will use the two photographs above this article to show how sea level rise is so serious that high tide has now reached the Eiffel Tower in Paris.
Sea levels have nothing to do with carbon dioxide.
The reasons for the pause are all to do with natural cycles. Back radiation does not raise surface temperatures, so it has nothing to do with carbon dioxide levels. At Mauna where those levels are measured there has been no increase in temperature since 1959 as shown here.
To really understand what is happening you need an understanding of entropy and thermodynamic equilibrium. Without such, you are likely to be totally misled by those who likewise don’t understand thermodynamics.
When a ball is falling through a vacuum tube gravitational potential energy is converted to kinetic energy (just as happens to molecules in flight between collisions) and total energy remains constant. However, entropy increases and that is what the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us.
As a result of that law, a stable density gradient forms in a planet’s troposphere. This happens when, in any horizontal plane, the pressure from below equals the pressure from above.
In Kinetic Theory we understand that pressure is caused by molecules striking a wall or imaginary boundary. Temperature is proportional to mean molecular kinetic energy and pressure is proportional to the product of temperature and density.
Hence, when we have thermodynamic equilibrium (with maximum entropy) we have equal numbers of molecules going upwards across a horizontal boundary as there are going downwards. In addition, when molecules are about to collide they have equal kinetic energy. This situation occurs when the sum (PE+KE) is constant even at different altitudes, and so that is why we have a temperature gradient.
As I said, this state of thermodynamic equilibrium also has a density gradient. This is because there is a slightly greater propensity for molecules to go downwards than upwards due to the fact that gravity curves their path if there is any horizontal component in their motion.
Now, because the temperature gradient is an equilibrium state, then we get what happens in the diagrams at the foot of this page which we suggest you now read.
Sea levels have nothing to do with carbon dioxide.
The reasons for the pause are all to do with natural cycles. Back radiation does not raise surface temperatures, so it has nothing to do with carbon dioxide levels. At Mauna where those levels are measured there has been no increase in temperature since 1959 as shown here.
To really understand what is happening you need an understanding of entropy and thermodynamic equilibrium. Without such, you are likely to be totally misled by those who likewise don’t understand thermodynamics.
When a ball is falling through a vacuum tube gravitational potential energy is converted to kinetic energy (just as happens to molecules in flight between collisions) and total energy remains constant. However, entropy increases and that is what the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us.
As a result of that law, a stable density gradient forms in a planet’s troposphere. This happens when, in any horizontal plane, the pressure from below equals the pressure from above.
In Kinetic Theory we understand that pressure is caused by molecules striking a wall or imaginary boundary. Temperature is proportional to mean molecular kinetic energy and pressure is proportional to the product of temperature and density.
Hence, when we have thermodynamic equilibrium (with maximum entropy) we have equal numbers of molecules going upwards across a horizontal boundary as there are going downwards. In addition, when molecules are about to collide they have equal kinetic energy. This situation occurs when the sum (PE+KE) is constant even at different altitudes, and so that is why we have a temperature gradient.
As I said, this state of thermodynamic equilibrium also has a density gradient. This is because there is a slightly greater propensity for molecules to go downwards than upwards due to the fact that gravity curves their path if there is any horizontal component in their motion.
Now, because the temperature gradient is an equilibrium state, then we get downward convective heat transfer when that equilibrium is disturbed by newly absorbed solar radiation in the upper troposphere. This heat is what supplies that energy which James Hansen thought back radiation did.
You are correct in your statement of the 2nd Law but you overlook details of the greenhouse effect: When GHG molecules in the upper troposphere absorb IR thermal radiation leaving the Planet, they re-radiate IR in all directions. So the re-radiated IR returns to the lower troposphere and the surface of the planet, warming both. In order for convection to play a role in this phenomenon in the upper troposphere, the GHG molecules would have to convert IR to kinetic energy; but they don’t.
“for convection to play a role in this phenomenon in the upper troposphere, the GHG molecules would have to convert IR to kinetic energy; but they don’t.”
Of course they do, are you trying to suggest that they do not collide with other atoms?
Funny how that at night those DWIR photons make things COLDER isn’t it?
As a non scientist, but someone who can read and assimilate data and see that nothing has really changed regarding climate over the last twenty years, can anyone explain to me how on earth the level of the sea can be determined to half or one millimeter? We have two tidal movements a day, we have winds that move sea volumes from one area to another. We have temperature changes in different areas of the oceans that impact on volume, and different from the previous year, We have the Gulf stream changing from year to year. We have wave movements that are for ever changing across the world and we have El Ninos and other periodic weather changes globally, and these so called ‘experts’ tell us that the sea has risen by half a centimetre. Just how do they come to their conclusions?
Sorry mod, The last line should have read Millimeter not centimater. could you change it please.
Then there are tsunamis …
Yes, and I did not mention the different levels of melting and freezing of the seas at the Poles which vary from year to year.
George, you got the essence. They cannot. They pretend to, since a warming world melts ice and drastically raises sea level and that is a catastrophe since Tuvalu will drown (but not if Darwin’s 1834 observations about coral atolls are correct). Essay Pseudo Precision outs the specifics.
I call it statistical modeling devination.
Translation of the following partial quote by Dr. Wells:
““Further research is required to more fully understand ….”
means SEND MO E MONEY
[Or, more precisely, “SEND ME MO MONEY” ? .mod]
That is about it, George.
Exactly…that is the main reason for this useless research. A rise of 1mm per year is hardly worth current research funds let alone endless appeals for “further research”.
I am confused. The article states:
“For example, increases in average high water of over one millimetre per year have occurred around the world, including Calais in France, Manilla in the Philippines, Wilmington in the USA and Broome in Australia. Increases in mean high water of approximately half a millimetre per year occur at UK sites, such as Heysham, Millport and Port Patrick, all of which are around the Irish Sea. Decreases in mean high water and tidal range occur at many sites around the UK, including Milford Haven, Lowestoft and Ilfracombe. This has potential impacts on energy extraction, such as the tidal lagoon in Swansea Bay.”
For SLR rates of +1 mm per year to (undocumented) values below 0.0 mm per year. Yet the NOAA data quoted in Mr Hamlin’s comment indicate that actual data indicate no acceleration in SLR worldwide. So the values quoted in the article must be local values (right?) while the NOAA data are averages? And the IPCC values are fiction?
Yes, and why pick out local areas anyway when we are talking about the whole of the world’s oceans. The more you analyse this report, the more you feel that it has been put together either by schoolchildren or idiotic adults. But I suppose it does the job of scaring those who believe everything they read, like American Presidents, the BBC and the world’s media.
1 mm/y. That’s a little more than 1/32nd of an inch, 00.0313, 31,300 ppm.
You’ve got to be joking. No way is that an actual measurement, has to be a statistical construct.
I would think it challenging to measure tides, sea levels, to an inch with any repeatability or accuracy. Can’t get six significant figure results, xxx.xxx” out of two significant figure data, xxx.0″. Measuring tides and sea levels to 0.1″? Get real.
Ditto. I teach AP Chemistry in the US, and begin the year teaching how to determine the precision of a scaled measuring device, which then move to the defined tolerance of an electronic measuring device. This, of course, is how the instrument performs under perfect conditions. We then discuss how confident we are using said device in compromised conditions. And then learn to propagate error blah blah blah …..
So, please help me (Barry, warrenlb, etc) …. how we are to hold any type of significance in a measurement taken in less than optimal conditions [moving water, rippled, differing sediment values, etc] that’s delta value is 0.1″. I mean, are we using a micrometer to produce precision that allows 0.1″ to be significant? HOW? I mean, really, this is getting ridiculous. These people have got to be policed, they are “scientists” committing felonies in front of our eyes ….. I mean, won’t this allow them to procure more grant money? In other words, aren’t they stealing?
So, to finish my original thought ….. I would expect that my classroom filled with juniors and seniors in high school would look at this study, wrinkle their brow and utter (“huh”?) …. so yes, high school kids would be laughing out loud (let’s go with their vernacular … lol) at this study. Congrats to the laughing stocks ….
Jake, your comment about instrumental error, limits of accuracy, and error propagation is exactly on target. Climate modelers know nothing about those topics. As a result, their work is physically meaningless. Take a look at my WUWT article here.
Pat; Just read your article, it should not only be required reading for anyone who is interested in AGW, it could be used in the Freshman courses of which you speak. Your best quote?
“Result ± error tells what one knows. If the error is larger than the result, one doesn’t know anything.”
Brilliant … enough said.
Ditto ditto.
Measuring sea levels to the millimeter?
Measuring average temperature changes to the hundredth of a degree C?
(And what the bleep does average temperature even mean for a non-equilibrium system?)
Mathematically modeling climate a hundred years into the future?
Claiming any event anywhere is directly caused by man’s contribution to climate change?
These are delusional people who think they have a hotline to Heaven.
We are looking at narcissistic personality disorder.
There’s a lot of that (NPD) going around, and it’s a useful trait to seek, encourage and exploit for agenda gains.
The trick a lot of these paper writers use is to say that the error of one measurement is X so a 100 or a 1000 measurements gives an error much much smaller. I can’t remember the math off hand. I’ve seen this done with Argo ocean temp data.
The problem with this is that is assumes the errors are random and unbiased and consistent with time. That’s not true in the real world. So, bottom line, errors are generally much bigger than presented and the true error size is very difficult to estimate.
For the many people questioning the accuracy of the data, here is summary of the errors for the Topex/Poseidon satellite:
Altimeter Errors (Topex/Poseidon)
The most accurate observations of the sea-surface topography are from Topex/ Poseidon.
Errors for this satellite altimeter system are due to:
1.Instrument noise, ocean waves, water vapor, free electrons in the ionosphere, and mass of the atmosphere. Topex/Poseidon carries a precise altimeter system able to observe the height of the satellite above the sea surface between ±66° latitude with a precision of ±2 cm and an accuracy of ±3.2 cm. The system consists of a two-frequency radar altimeter to measure height. The system also included a three-frequency microwave radiometer able to measure vapor in the troposphere.
2.Tracking errors. The satellite carries three tracking systems that enable its position in space, its ephemeris, to be determined with an accuracy of ±3.5 cm (Tapley et al. 1994a).
3.Sampling error. The satellite measure height along a ground track that repeats within ±1 km every 9.9156 days. Each repeat is a cycle. Because currents are measured only along the sub-satellite track, there is a sampling error. The satellite cannot map the topography between ground tracks, nor can it observe changes with periods less than 2 x 9.9156 d.
4.Geoid error. The permanent topography is well known over distances shorter than 1,600 km because geoid errors dominate for shorter distances. Maps of the topography smoothed over 1,600 km are used to study the dominant features of the permanent geostophic currents at the sea surface.
Taken together, the measurements of height above the sea and the satellite position give sea-surface height in geocentric coordinates with an accuracy of ±4.7 cm. The geoid errors adds further errors that depend on the size of the area being measured.
taken from:
ocean.stanford.edu/courses/EESS141/lecture6.doc
During my lifetime the seas have risen 73mm relative to the shoreline. On a shoreline with a 1 degree slope, this means the shoreline has moved inland 4.2m. A 1 degree slope is completely flat to the human eye. Any noticeable shoreline is much more than 1 degree; a lifetime of this rise is meaningless outside of academia.
Is there something else going on, related to the actual forces that are drivers of the tides?
James, many things are going on, including an 18.5 year lunar cycle not even considered in the study. This cycle has a mean amplitude of 2.2 cm.
http://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-11-00169.1