Global Sea-level Rise: Faster than Ever?

by Charles Clough

recent_sea_level_rise
Sea level rise to 2005. Image from WUWT archive for purpose of illustration. Not part of the original essay.

In yet another instance of the media jumping on the climate alarmist bandwagon, The New York Times this past February boldly headlined “Seas Are Rising at Fastest Rate in Last 28 centuries.” The article went on to proclaim “the worsening of tidal flooding in coastal communities is largely a consequence of greenhouse gases from human activity, and the problem will grow far worse in coming decades, scientists reported Monday.”

“Worsening tidal flooding”—“grow far worse”—scary words for coastal inhabitants, but do they help the reader understand what the two reports (here and here) actually said? More importantly, do they help the reader evaluate what was reported? Or does the NYT wording continue the intellectually shallow but emotionally potent sea-level terror theme of Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth?

The two reports published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS) made several claims. During pre-industrial history (prior to 1860), global sea level rose at an average rate of 0.1 to 0.3 mm/yr. From 1860 to 1900 it rose at an average rate of 0.4 mm/yr, and from 1900 to the present it has been rising at 1.4 mm/yr. The studies project for various hypothetical CO2 emission-increase scenarios during this 21st century a total rise in global sea level between 1 ft and 2.5 ft.

First, observe that “tidal flooding” is not the same as the spectacular “storm-surge” that accompanies severe coastal storms like Sandy or the fictionalized surge in the 2004 apocalyptic sci-fi film The Day After Tomorrow. Such surges can easily exceed the reports’ estimated increase in tidal flooding by ten times or more. You probably wouldn’t know that from media stories like the NYT piece. Mitigation of known storm surge damage could protect coastal communities from the worst guesses of sea-level rise for the rest of this century!

Second, forecasting sea-level rise involves even more guesswork than forecasting global warming. Actual sea-level direct measurement data exist only for a century and a half and only for a few regions of the earth. Even in the world’s best documented region, the eastern North Sea and Baltic region, tide-gage records of sea-level measurement are less than 200 years old. Estimates of sea-level changes over 28 centuries necessarily rely upon layers of interpretation of various proxies such as evidence of shoreline changes. Extensive modeling, therefore, is required as the two PNAS papers demonstrate. Each model element to some degree has to involve guesswork. Resulting estimates of sea-level rise rates vary from 1.15 mm/yr to about 3 mm/yr—a considerable variation for any long-term projections.

Third, tide gages and proxies give relative sea-level, not absolute sea-level. They show sea-level relative to the land level. Absolute sea-level measurements from satellite only began in the early 90s—too recent to establish significant trends. To obtain absolute sea-level measurements from relative measurements or proxies, scientists have to correct for many variables—vertical changes in both land and ocean basin levels, ocean salinity changes, overland glacial decreases and increases, on-shore-off-shore prolonged winds, and gravitational interactions between the earth and lunar orbits. Would readers of media headline articles know that?

Finally, there is the problem of learning how long the oceans take to reach equilibrium once there is a change in global temperature. Temperatures have been generally rising and sea-levels with them ever since the end of the ice age thousands of years ago. But there have been numerous up-and-down oscillations in this general trend, none of which is well understood. Are we in one or more of these oscillations now?

Given these caveats in the reasoning behind the claim that “seas are rising at the fastest rate in the last 28 centuries,” it comes as no surprise that renowned experts in the field like Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner of Sweden don’t take these reports seriously. Mörner challenges one of the PNAS papers, pointing out several of its conflicts with actual observations: nowhere do global tide gauges show valid increases in the rate of sea-level rise, and new satellite altimetry of absolute sea-level when carefully calibrated shows a mean rise of 0.5 mm/yr, not the modeled 1.4 mm/yr.

Since atmospheric CO2 emission levels do not correlate with such changes prior to the industrial age, the upward trend in temperature and sea level will continue regardless of the political campaign to impose economy-destroying carbon asceticism on the world’s population. Readers of such articles ought to heed the advice of Harvard oceanographer Roger Revelle (whom Al Gore claimed taught him fear of global warming’s planetary effects). Revelle’s last published article (co-authored with S. Fred Singer and Chauncey Starr) before his death was entitled “What to Do about Global Warming: Look before You Leap” (Cosmos 1 (1991): 28–33).


Atmospheric physicist Charles Clough, Bel Air, MD, is retired chief of the U.S. Army Atmospheric Effects Team at the Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD; retired Lt. Col., U.S. Air Force Reserve Weather Officer; President of Biblical Framework Ministries; adjunct Professor at Chafer Theological Seminary, Albuquerque, NM; and a Fellow of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

118 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
oppti
May 17, 2016 11:05 pm

Use the sea Level Trend for The Battery .
It has a periodic pattern:
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/50yr.htm?stnid=8518750

Seth
Reply to  oppti
May 18, 2016 5:20 am

oppti wrote:
Use the sea Level Trend for The Battery .
It has a periodic pattern:

Not one that dominates the overall trend:
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8518750

ferdberple
May 18, 2016 5:35 am

Actual sea-level direct measurement data exist only for a century and a half and only for a few regions of the earth.
====================
The British Admiralty mapped the oceans of the earth in exacting detail 200-300 years ago. These charts show sea level to the closest foot. These charts are still in use today, as most of the earth has never been resurveyed.
These charts are regularly updated to show wrecks that have occurred since then, rocks that were missed on the original survey, and corrected to match GPS Lat and Long.
However, nowhere on these charts, on which thousands of lives and perhaps billions of dollars in shipping relies, nowhere on these charts is there a correction for sea level rise. Go figure.

Frank Tuijnman
May 18, 2016 5:46 am

In 2000, Kyra van Onselen wrote a PhD thesis (University of Delft) about “The influence of data quality on the detectability of sea-level height variations” (google ceg_onselen_20010129.PDF for full text). For anyone interested in what can and cannot be learned from studying historic sea-level data it is a must read. The most interesting conclusions are reached in chapter 4, page 89. One key question she tries to answer is when and how a possible increase in the linear trend can be detected in the data. Her conclusion is:
“Actual tide gauge data contains fluctuations with a wide range of frequencies. It is found that long-periodic fluctuations are the main factor in determining the amount of data required to detect a linear trend in a sea-level height series. … If, after 125 years of data has been obtained, in 1990 an increase in trend occurs, the amount of (future) observations required to detect this acceleration depends on the magnitude of this increase in trend. Without prior smoothing of the data, observations up to 2100 are not sufficient to detect a small trend change from l.5 to 1.8 mm/yr. If trend increases from 1.5 to 4.5 mm/yr (smoothed) observations up to around 2050 are required.”
To summarize: natural long-periodic fluctuations will mask even a substantial trend change until 2050, and anyone who claims to detect a trend change now is manipulating statistics.

George Steiner
May 18, 2016 6:58 am

0.5 mm is 0.020″. In other words, it is 20 thousandths of an inch. Whoever pushes out numbers like this in liquid level measurement belongs in an institution.
Even 1.4 mm is about 1/16″. This is all nonsense.

Dr. Dave
May 18, 2016 7:08 am

I always get a kick out of sea level estimates using tidal gauges, which operate under the very premise that the surface of the earth is a fixed datum on which anything and everything else can be measured. This assumption ignores plate tectonics, whereby the Earth’s surface rises and falls in response to interactions between adjoining plates. Perhaps I’m missing something, but it seems to me that over centuries long time-scales, this known phenomenon has to contribute to the perception via tidal gauge measurements that sea level are rising.

Reply to  Dr. Dave
May 19, 2016 12:31 am

No, they don’t. Tide gauges accurately measure relative sea level.

Reply to  Richard A. O'Keefe
May 19, 2016 12:33 am

Fast typing on an iPad is a bad idea. If you are interested in the question “will this town be under water” the tide gauge tells you exactly what y need t know. Global mean sea level could not be any less relevant

Craig Loehle
May 18, 2016 8:01 am

If we can’t handle 2 feet of sea level rise, and have to shut down society in response, then we have become totally feeble. On the US West coast you would not even notice 2 feet of rise. In many places the land is rising anyway and will cancel the SL rise.

MarkW
Reply to  Craig Loehle
May 18, 2016 10:20 am

Even worse, that’s 2 feet over 100 years.
Most buildings will be replaced at least once over that period of time regardless of what the sea level does.

May 18, 2016 9:01 am

The late, great John Daly wrote definitive treatises on sea levels here and here.

Bob Kutz
May 18, 2016 10:54 am

Yeah . . . NYT. It’s not news. Not one time. Not ever. It’s not what they do for a living.
I thought everybody knew that at this point.

May 18, 2016 2:37 pm

If just a tiny fraction of one year’s spending ($1 billion+) that is wasted every year on grants to ‘study climate change’ was spent on constructing a world-wide network of a couple of hundred new tide gauges, their measurements could be averaged. That would eliminate local subsidence and uplifting errors.
Those tide gauge measurements could then be averaged, which would provide a very accurate record of changes in the true mean sea level. It would simply require a sufficient number of tide gauges in appropriate locations around the globe.
That network of tide gauges would eliminate the subsidence/uplift problem, since there cannot be more of one than the other. Because if that were the case, the planet’s diameter would either be increasing or decreasing, and we know that isn’t happening.
Will the government do that? Of course not! The government does not want accurate sea level information known, because it would very likely show that sea levels are not rising much, if at all. It would also show that any sea level rise is not accelerating — which is still a claim by some in the alarmist camp.
The sea level debate is not about science at all. This debate, like the global warming debate, is intended to pave the way for ‘carbon’ taxes. New carbon taxes would confiscate immense piles of taxpayer money, and funnel it into the government.
That would result in a ballooning of the bureaucracy, paid for by a reduction in the average person’s standard of living. But it would do nothing at all to change either the sea level, or global warming. This entire debate is all about politics, not science.
The only ones who don’t understand that are the eco-lemmings who have bought into the ‘dangerous man-made global warming’ scare. They have argued for so long, and so forcefully that dangerous AGW is a threat, that they cannot back down now and admit that the hated skeptics were right all along. But it’s true.
Since the alarmist contingent lost the science debate, it’s become all politics, 24/7/365.

Clovis Marcus
May 19, 2016 5:59 am

So…beach front property prices are going through the floor? Thought not. Nobody believes this.

Isha Abbit
May 19, 2016 6:04 am

I think we should look more closely to WHERE these sea levels do change and how much, because it could serve as an indicator how much northern ice is left..
Gravity law tells us that due attraction the sea level near an ice cap will be higher. The first ice cap to melt will be Iceland’s, lowering Northwest Europe’s levels – not raising. It is beyond the distance of 1500 km that sea level starts to rise, how more farther away from the melting event how higher the rising will be.
It is calculated when the ice cap of Greenland will melt, sea levels at the coasts of the UK and Netherlands will rise only 2 meter instead of 4 due this gravity effect. At other hand, all other regions farther away will have an higher rise then computer models are predicting…
With this theory in hand we should be able to track the ice cap’s doing when we got our sea level data right. Rising levels in NorthWest Europe, little lowering levels in France, and more lowering in Portugal could mean the first ice cap to melt (in case of global warming) is actually growing.
And to mind boggle myself: if so, how much does a growing Antarctica ice cap lower Northern hemisphere sea level and does this tamper the growing of Northern ice caps (like the couldn’t-sleep-because-of-sharing-a-too-small-blanket-with-someone effect)?
Does this sound like making sense? ..(Couldn’t find this gravity effect on this site’s archive)..

Bartemis
May 19, 2016 11:46 am

Meh. The world is experiencing a long term warming trend. You expect ice to melt when it gets warmer. It has little bearing on the case for attribution.
The fact is that the long term trend has been the same since the exit from the LIA, and was therefore set in motion long before increasing CO2 could have been the causative agent. So, yes, temperatures are rising, and sea level is rising. But, what’s it got to do with CO2?
Claiming CO2 caused it is not even post hoc ergo propter hoc, because it was the trend that came before. It’s more a basic failure of causality. It’s like claiming cancer causes smoking.

Robbins Mitchell
May 19, 2016 6:41 pm

Well,if there has been any appreciable sea level rise recently,it’s probably due to all the eco-nazi panty wetting

May 21, 2016 3:15 pm

I am extremely curious as to how proxy sea level records are deciphered with the precision necessary. Without a tide gauge, how does one determine what the exact mean sea level was at some location and time in the past? Tide lines can give you a maximum high tide, but how do know where low tide was? What effect does climate change have on wind-driven currents and how is that factored in? Subsidence and uplift of the land is also often not a gradual, linear process. The ground can shift suddenly and dramatically in an earthquake, then remain relatively motionless for centuries.

JohnMacdonell
May 21, 2016 3:48 pm

For a contrary opinion, check this NOAA report:
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
Go to “global sea level” and then perhaps Home map or trends map

Tobyw
May 22, 2016 5:43 am

Sea level at The Battery and similar long term measurements have a tab which gives a 50-year average -25 years forward and 50 years back. Many of these show the rate peaks in 1950 or nearby. Satellite graphs show the recent above-trend peak and earlier below-trend dip correlating with the recent PDO, I believe it was.

Tobyw
May 22, 2016 5:44 am

sorry, thats 25 years forward and 25 back, of course.