Recent Sea-Level Change at Major Cities

Guest essay by Rich Taylor

Abstract

Human population is becoming increasingly urban, and most of the world’s largest and fastest-growing cities border tidewater. This note presents charts of annual-value (AV) tide-gauge records in or near major coastal cities to illustrate the sea-level change these cities have observed recently, and fits linear trends to the records. Trends range from -1.5 mm per year (mm/y) to 18 mm/y. Tectonic uplift can explain the lowest trends, and cities growing rapidly on unconsolidated sediments (perhaps dredged) have the highest trends due to land subsidence. Urban areas that encompass ground of variable stability observe variable sea-level change. Where the ground is stable, typical change appears to be a rise of 1- to 2-mm/y. Rates above 3 mm/y seem to have a substantial component of natural and/or anthropogenic subsidence. Rates above 10 mm/y appear to be a primarily a consequence of human activity, which implies they should be manageable to some degree.

All records in this review are from the website www.psmsl.org of the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level. Profound thanks are due to the Service and its supporters; the website makes it easy to find and download data of apparent fidelity. All geological information is from the website mrdata.usgs.gov/geology/worldgeol.html of the US Geological Survey. The website presents world geology compiled by the Geological Survey of Canada (Open File 2915) as an interactive map that is easy to navigate and interrogate.

Trends in long records

A few major coastal cities have tide-gauge records that exceed 100 years in length. Records that are sufficiently long and accurate show the transition from stable sea-level that prevailed during the 1800s to the general rise that has been characteristic since about 1900. AVs from the gauge at the small city of Brest show this history clearly.

Brest is on terrane that is mainly sedimentary, which rests on older metamorphic and plutonic rocks that outcrop within 20 km to the north and south. Sedimentary rocks can be porous, and they decompose more readily than plutonic and metamorphic rocks into unconsolidated sediments. Plutonic and metamorphic rocks are typically non-porous. Unconsolidated and consolidated sedimentary terranes are more prone to land subsidence, especially when pore-fluid such as groundwater or natural gas is extracted for some combination of civic, industrial or agricultural use. Volcanic rocks have variable porosity and durability.

Brest has the longest record in the regular PSMSL database, and the record has good continuity and quality. From 1807 to 1900, AVs at Brest suggest sea-level was essentially stable. The trend for the last 100 years has been 1.5 mm/y, likely due to thermal expansion of sea water and the net transfer of water from continental aquifers to the ocean.

clip_image002Accordingly for major cities with long records, AVs are used that provide a trend as close as possible of 100-years-to-the-present, and the rest of the AVs are presented but not trended.

An alphabetical review follows of the most populous coastal cities.

Bangkok harbor is the site of the Fort Phrachula Chomklao gauge. It is in the delta of the Chao Phraya River, which rests on mainly sedimentary terrane. From 1940 to 1959 (B59) its trend was 2.7 mm/y. Since 1962 (B62) it has been 18 mm/y (i.e. 18 cm/decade). The gauge has data-quality cautions (QCFLAGs) for the sharp increase in trend from 1962 and an apparent datum shift from 2003.

Sixty km to the south-southeast in the Gulf of Thailand is sparsely populated Ko Sichang Island and its gauge. The island is near the boundary where sedimentary bedrock rests on older plutonic terrane. From 1940 to 2002, the trend of the gauge (KS) was 0.8 mm/y. The Ko Sichang trend suggests that most of the apparent sea-level rise at Bangkok to 1959 is due to land subsidence, and that urban activity since 1962 has made the rise about 7-times more rapid than before and about 20-times more rapid than on Ko Sichang.

clip_image004

Unconsolidated sediments, such as in Bangkok harbor, are prone to subsidence but gauges in the Netherlands show that stability can result from planning and management. The Maassluis gauge has the longest record; it sits about 15 km from the North Sea on the Maas channel that takes most of the flow through the Rhine (etc.) delta. Its 1.8-mm/y trend is also the average 100-year trend of the six long-standing gauges (Vlissingen, Maassluis, Hoek van Holland, Ijmuiden, Den Helder, Harlingen and Delfzijl) that monitor sea level for the Netherlands.

clip_image006

Buenos Aires is on mainly sedimentary terrane bordering the Rio de la Plata estuary. Its Buenos Aires gauge provided AVs from 1905 to 1987, and the nearby Palermo gauge provides AVs to the present. Both have trends of 1.6 mm/y.

clip_image008

Chennai is on mostly sedimentary terrane, near the surface contact with underlying metamorphic/plutonic terrane. The trend at the Chennai / Madras gauge from 1916 to 2010 was 0.6 mm/y.

clip_image010

Guangzhou, Dongguan, Shenzhen, Hong Kong (HK), Macau and Zhongshan encircle the Pearl River Estuary (Shiziyuan). This area is on mainly sedimentary bedrock, but underlying plutonic terrane outcrops in the northern part of Guangzhou and in Macau. There are nine gauges in HK and in one in Macau that have operated during the last 100 years, which allow an insight into intra-urban variability. In order of initial AV, the following table and chart summarize information provided by these gauges.

Gauge Span of AVs Trend mm/y AVs / Span Chart Legend
Macau 1925-1982 0.2 58 / 58 M
North Point 1950-1985 -1.2 35 / 36 N
Chi Ma Wan 1961-1989 1.8 15 / 29 C
Tai Po Kau 1963-2016 3.1 50 / 50 P
Tsim Bei Tsui 1975-2016 0.6 27 / 42 T
Loc On Pai 1986-1998 -1.1 10 / 13 L
Quarry Bay 1986-2016 2.9 31 / 31 Q
Waglan Island 1995-2015 4.0 13 / 21 W
Shek Pik 1998-2016 0.1 17 / 19 S
Tai Miu Wan 1998-2016 2.9 16 / 19 MW

clip_image012 In this close cluster of gauges, diversity remains in some trends that span similar intervals. A trend of 1.3 mm/y for this urban area can be obtained by averaging the trends for the gauges, where each trend is weighted by the number of years spanned by the gauge.

Hangzhou is at the south end of the Grand Canal of China in the south-central part of the Yangtze River Delta, and is underlain by sedimentary and volcanic bedrock. It has no gauge in its urban area; the Kanmen and Lusi (discussed with Shanghai) gauges are each about 300 km away. The Kanmen gauge is on volcanic terrane; its trend since 1959 is 5.6 mm/y.

clip_image014

Istanbul is on mixed sedimentary and volcanic bedrock. The nearest indicative gauge might be at Alexandroupolis about 400 km to the east, on mainly sedimentary bedrock. From 1969 to 2014, the Alexandroupolis trend has been 2.6 mm/y.

clip_image016

Jakarta is on mainly sedimentary terrane. It has no gauge in its urban area (and no gauge in Indonesia has more than 8 AVs in its record). Jakarta sits over a sea-floor subduction zone; Lima (q.v.) is in a similar tectonic situation and has a gauge in its urban area.

Karachi is on mainly sedimentary terrane. Intermittent measurements at its gauge from 1916 to 2014 provide a trend of 1.9 mm/y.

clip_image018

Kolkata is in the western Ganges Delta on mainly sedimentary terrane. Its Calcutta gauge has a QCFLAG for an apparent datum shift starting in 1976; its trend since 1932 is 6.9 mm/y. The Diamond Harbour gauge is 40 km further south on the delta; its trend since 1948 is 4 mm/y.

clip_image020

Lagos is on mainly sedimentary terrane. It has no gauge but the Takoradi and Tema gauges, respectively 700 km and 500 km to the west on the same terrane, might provide some indication of sea-level change there. The Takoradi trend from 1930 to 2008 was 2.8 mm/y, excluding AVs from 1972 and 1991 with a QCFLAG for irregular appearance. The Tema trend from 1963 to 1981 was 1 mm/y.

clip_image022

Lima sits on mainly volcanic terrane above the subduction of Pacific sea-floor under South America. Its harbor gauge, Callao 2, has a QCFLAG for many ad hoc datum adjustments made to original data. The trend of the adjusted AVs at Callao 2 since 1970 is -0.3 mm/y. The La Libertad II gauge in Ecuador and the Antofagasta II gauge in Chile sit above the same subduction, have longer records than Callao 2 and neither has a QCFLAG. Their trends, respectively, are -1.3 mm/y for 1950 to 2002 and -0.8 mm/y for 1946 to 2015.

clip_image024

London and area are on mainly sedimentary terrane. The Tower Pier gauge provided urban data from 1929 to 1982 with a trend of 1.7 mm/y. The Southend gauge is 50 km east in the Thames Estuary, and its trend from 1933 to the present is 1.3 mm/y.

clip_image026

The Los Angeles gauge is on mainly sedimentary terrane, as are the Santa Monica. Alamitos Bay Entrance and Newport Bay gauges in the Los Angeles urban area. Santa Monica and Newport Bay are near the outcrop of underlying metamorphic and/or plutonic terrain. The trends in mm/y of the gauges are, respectively, 1, 1.5, 1.6 and 8, and the span-weighted average is 1.7.

clip_image002[4]

Manila is on sedimentary and volcanic terrane. The Manila gauge has QCFLAGs for river discharges and land reclamation. The gauge was moved in 2002. The trend (M62) from 1902 to 1962 was 1.6 mm/y. Subsequently the trend (M63) increased abruptly and has continued to the present at 15 mm/y. The Cebu gauge, 600 km to the south-southeast, is on similar terrane, has a record of comparable length and no noted adjustments or disturbances. Its trend since 1936 has been 1.2 mm/y.

clip_image004[4]

Mumbai is on Deccan basalt, a volcanic rock that typically has low porosity. The trend of the Mumbai / Bombay gauge from 1911 to 2010 was 0.9 mm/y.

clip_image006[4]

Nagoya is on mainly volcanic terrane. There is a non-specific QCFLAG for the Nagoya gauge, but the pattern seen in the combined AVs for Nagoya and Nagoya II is similar to that seen at the Onisaki gauge, on the same terrane 20 km to the south. Tectonic movement is a likely cause of the pattern. Since 1963, the Onisaki trend is -1.5 mm/y.

clip_image008[4]

The New York gauge is on mixed sedimentary-volcanic terrane, as are the Bergen Point gauge on Staten Island and the New Rochelle gauge north of the Bronx. Gauges on the mainly sedimentary terrane are Willets Point, Kings Point, Port Jefferson, Montauk and Plum Island on/by Long Island and Sandy Point off the south shore of New York Bay. USGS Fact Sheet-165-00 mentions subsidence at New York Bay.

In order of initial AV, the following table and chart summarize information provided by these gauges.

Gauge Span of AVs Trend mm/y AVs / Span Chart Legend
New York 1917-2016 3.1 97 / 100 NY
Willets Point 1932-1999 2.4 65 / 68 WP
Sandy Point 1933-2016 4.1 80 / 84 SP
Montauk 1948-2016 3.1 58 / 69 M
Plum Island 1958-1967 -4.4 8 / 10 PI
New Rochelle 1958-1981 0.6 21 / 24 NR
Port Jefferson 1958-1990 2.2 31 / 33 PJ
Bergen Point 1985-2016 4.8 25 / 32 BP
Kings Point 1999-2016 5.3 18 / 18 KP

clip_image010[4]The span-weighted average of the trends is 3.0 mm/y. Given the diversity of trends among gauges and changes in gauge activity, the long-established New York and Montauk gauges, respectively at the southern tip of Manhattan and the eastern end of Long Island, appear to be good indicators for this urban area.

Osaka is in the delta of the Yodo River, which is underlain by volcanic terrane. In its urban area are the Osaka, Kobe and Kobe II gauges, and each has a QCFLAG for subsidence. The trend of the Osaka gauge since 1965 is 5.2 mm/y.

clip_image012[4]

Qingdao has no gauge in its urban area; its coastal portion is on metamorphic and/or plutonic terrane. The Shijiusho gauge, 100 km to the southwest, is on the same terrane. The Yantai gauge is 200 km to the northwest, on plutonic terrane and has a QCFLAG for possible datum shifts. From 1954 to 1994, the Yantai trend was -0.2 mm/y and the Shijiusho trend from 1975 to 1994 was 1.7 mm/y.

clip_image014[4]

Rio de Janeiro is on metamorphic and/or plutonic terrane. The Rio de Janeiro gauge provided 13 AVs from 1950 to 1967, with a trend of 3.7 mm/y. Since 1965, the trend for the Ilha Fiscal gauge has been 1.8 mm/y. The span-weighted average is 2.3 mm/y.

clip_image016[4]

São Paulo has no gauge in its urban area. The closest gauge is Cananeia, 200 km west-southwest, which has QCFLAGs for its anomalous trend of 3.8 mm/y. São Paulo and the gauges at Rio de Janeiro 350 km east-northeast are on the same metamorphic and/or plutonic terrane so the Rio de Janeiro average of 2.3 mm/y might be also indicative for São Paulo.

Seoul is on metamorphic and/or plutonic terrane. Its urban area extends to the coast at Incheon, where the trend of that gauge since 1960 is 1.3 mm/y.

clip_image018[4]Shanghai is in the north-central Yangtze River Delta, as is the Luci gauge 100 km north of the city centre. Both are underlain by mainly sedimentary terrane. There is a non-specific QCFLAG for the gauge, where the trend since 1969 is 5.6 mm/y.

clip_image020[4]Shantou has no gauge in its urban area, but it and the Xiamen gauge 200 km to the northeast are both on plutonic terrane. The trend at Xiamen from 1954 to 2003 was 1.1 mm/y.

clip_image022[4]

Tianjin hosts the Grand Canal of China, in the Hai River delta on mainly sedimentary terrane. The trend of its Tanggu gauge from 1975 to 1994 was 5.6 mm/y.

clip_image024[4]Tokyo is on mainly sedimentary terrane where the Sumida and Tama Rivers reach tidewater. The Tokyo I gauge provided a few scattered AVs from 1958 to 1962. The Sibaura and Tokyo III gauges in combination provide AVs from 1961 to the present, and the trend of both gauges is 1.6 mm/y.

clip_image026[4]

Summary

Most of the world’s largest coastal cities border the Pacific Ocean. In recent decades, apparent sea-level has dropped at Nagoya, Lima and perhaps Jakarta. Sea level has likely risen 1- to 2-mm/y at Qingdao, Shantou, Guangzhou-Shenzhen-HK, Seoul, Tokyo and Los Angeles. It has apparently risen 5- to 6-mm/y at the delta cities of Osaka, Tianjin and Shanghai-Hangzhou. The effect of urban activity is clear in apparent rises of 15 mm/y at Manila and 18 mm/y at Bangkok.

For the Atlantic Basin, sea level has likely risen about 2-mm/y at Buenos Aires, London and Rio de Janeiro. Perhaps any change at São Paulo or Lagos has been similar. The apparent rise at Istanbul might be more than 2 mm/y, and apparent rise of 3 mm/y at New York might be due in part to subsidence.

For the Indian Ocean, sea level has likely risen 0.5- to 2-mm/y at Chennai, Mumbai and Karachi. The delta city of Kolkata has seen an apparent rise of 7 mm/y.

Delta cities and others on unconsolidated sediments have higher apparent rises. However, gauges in the Netherlands show that sea-level change in highly developed regions on unconsolidated sediments can be kept close to change seen generally around the world.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

152 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Editor
March 29, 2017 7:38 am

Rich Taylor ==> Any analysis of Relative Sea Level Rise (local tide gauges) is incomplete without an examination of the local movement of the land itself relative to the center of the Earth. The issue is, of course, is the sea rising or is the land falling?

The National Geodetic Survey (NGS), an office of NOAA’s National Ocean Service, manages a network of Continuously Operating Reference Stations (CORS) that provide some of this data.

Locally, for local management, it matters very little. If Relative Sea Level is rising and encroaching on your waterfront park, who cares why. Either the land must be raised (or diked) or the sea lowered. Only one of those is possible.

Miami Beach is built so close to [any] sea level that much of the city is already below known highest historical tide levels. New York City, which is moving towards the center of the Earth, has also restricted the sea’s access to its natural flood plain — the Meadowlands — which fact was partially responsible for the damage caused by Tropical Storm Sandy.

Sea level is complicated. The seas are not a bathtub in which water rises evenly at all points.

The seas are rising however, that is certain and they will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. This fact has almost nothing to do with anthropogenic climate change

MarkW
Reply to  Kip Hansen
March 29, 2017 7:49 am

There’s also the magma in the mantle sloshing around. The resulting high and low (by a few parts per million) gravity changes can result in water pilling up around areas with higher gravity.

Reply to  Kip Hansen
March 29, 2017 8:24 am

MarkW beat me to it.
However, I would like to add following: the Earth’s solid inner core diameter is about 20% of the total, it is not a perfect sphere but asymmetrical.
Seismic tests suggests that there is an inner-core metallic crystallisation occurring in the western half while the opposite side melts, This is also confirmed by the secular changes in the magnetic field intensity, with the overall intensity of the magnetic field in the American continent is falling by 100nT/annum and rising by the similar amount in the Indian Ocean.
In addition the core rotates at a somewhat different rate to the crust (0.3 degrees/annum , hmm…1000yr climate cycle comes to mind/sarc) causing a slight change in the gravity as measured at surface. Oceans surface will respond to these gravity changes however small. This, of course is all adding to the + or – gravity anomalies due to the isostatic postglacial uplift.

MarkW
Reply to  Kip Hansen
March 29, 2017 9:26 am

Wind also pushes the water around.
We all know that the ENSO cycle changes the jet stream and the jet stream influences surface winds.
So any long term change in the ENSO cycle would have an impact on tidal guages.

DWR54
Reply to  MarkW
March 29, 2017 9:49 am

All this ‘sloshing around’, whether by wind or by movements in the earth’s mantle, would balance out over time would it not? I mean why would these random fluctuations influence the trend in only one direction over the past several decades?

Reply to  MarkW
March 29, 2017 10:00 am

” I mean why would these random fluctuations influence the trend in only one direction over the past several decades?”
No, the postglacial uplift started at least 10 to 15 thousand years ago, and it is still going on, the south coast of England is sinking while Scotland is rising.

DWR54
Reply to  MarkW
March 29, 2017 10:12 am

“No, the postglacial uplift started at least 10 to 15 thousand years ago, and it is still going on, the south coast of England is sinking while Scotland is rising.”

As I understand it glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) is already accounted for by the satellite altimeter producers. The phenomena MarkW was referring to above are independent of this: sea level change caused by 1) surges in mantle magma and 2) winds.

My questions concerned those 2 points rather than GIA. If these presumably fairly random factors have had a strong influence on GMSL rise over the past few decades then why has the trend been rising? Surely random factors like these would be expected to have a lowering effect around 60% of the time, balancing the system out.

DWR54
Reply to  MarkW
March 29, 2017 10:13 am

That should be “around 50%” of the time rather than “60%”.

Reply to  MarkW
March 29, 2017 10:39 am

Postglacial uplift doesn’t appear to be ‘smooth’ change. The epicentre of it is in the N-E Canada, It is assumed that 30% of secular changes in the magnetic field in the area are directly due to those changes and they show presence of significant ‘oscillations’. These are also visible in the The Hudson Bay “staircase” Periodicity varies between 40 and 70 years.
Gravity changes caused by the asymmetry in the earth’s core differential rotation have periodicity estimated to be just over 1000 years.
I’m not aware that either of two periodicities is accounted for in the tidal gauges data used for estimating global sea level data changes as presented by the AGW climate change advocates.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
March 29, 2017 10:39 am

They do balance out over time. However time in this sense is thousands to 10’s of thousands of years.

DWR54
Reply to  MarkW
March 29, 2017 8:41 pm

MarkW

A few posts back you were talking about magma in the mantle “sloshing around” and of winds pushing water around via energy from the jet stream. Now you’re referring to these processes as things that occur over “thousands to 10’s of thousands of years”.

Even if the movement of magma in the earth’s mantle did cause ocean water to pile up around areas with higher gravity, that wouldn’t increase mean sea level, since water would just be drawn from elsewhere, lowering sea levels locally at those locations.

Tom Halla
March 29, 2017 8:21 am

The charts of sea level do not show any general acceleration, so one of the alarmist themes is unsupported. One thing though, terrane and terrain? I had been under the impression a terrane was a “foreign” i. e. formed in some other place chunk of landscape, not just a chunk of territory in general, as with terrain.

Reply to  Tom Halla
March 29, 2017 8:31 am

The USGS interactive map uses terrane, so I did too. And for the earlier question about a link to data, it’s all at http://www.psmsl.org.

Ron Williams
March 29, 2017 9:01 am

Kip Hansen
“Sea level is complicated. The seas are not a bathtub in which water rises evenly at all points.”

I am surprised that the essay and reader comments don’t really talk about the planetary GEOID and how that affects mean sea level. If all of Greenland melted, theoretically the oceans would rise about 21 feet. But because of gravitational mass balance of that ice sheet, the melted water would tend to gravitate towards the equator and wind up on the opposite side of the planet from where the ice sheet had been. Was this essay only a geology lesson?

Gamecock
March 29, 2017 9:05 am

The oceans are not in a fixed basin. I.e., mean sea level is NOT simply a function of how much water volume there is in the oceans. Until the size of the basin is known fairly precisely, any discussion of causes of sea level change is speculation.

Changes could be 100% geological. We just don’t know. And, like Climate Science™, we don’t necessarily know what we don’t know.

DWR54
Reply to  Gamecock
March 29, 2017 10:03 am

Basin depth isn’t a problem for satellite altimeter data as it is calculated from the distance between the sea surface detected by the radar and the center of the Earth, giving a sea surface height (SSH), which is obviously independent of basin depth at any particular point.

Editor
Reply to  DWR54
March 29, 2017 10:55 am

DWR54 ==> Satellite measurements of sea level are approximations of averages of averages…..that means that the results are pretty iffy accuracy- and precision-wise. Read NOAAs pages on the Jason satellites and their hoped for accuracy, You will be surprised. The precision of claimed results is orders of magnitude smaller than their known margins of error. This results from a misplaced faith in the certainty and precision of averages.

All that said, there is little doubt that the Earth’s seas are “still rising after all these years.” [h/t Paul Simon]

DWR54
Reply to  DWR54
March 29, 2017 8:33 pm

Kip Hansen

“Satellite measurements of sea level are approximations of averages of averages…..that means that the results are pretty iffy accuracy- and precision-wise.”

Well there appear to be at least 5 independent producers of such data and all of them are quoting an accuracy in the order of 3.2 to 3.4 ± 0.4 to 0.6 mm/yr, which is also pretty precise. What evidence is there that they’ve all got it wrong?

Gamecock
Reply to  DWR54
March 30, 2017 1:44 pm

Irrelevant, DWR. Measuring sea level does not tell what has changed about the sea bottom. Plate movements, volcanoes, sedimentation, etc. You presume the basin is fixed.

Gary Pearse
March 29, 2017 9:12 am

Does anyone do level surveys from solid benchmark triangulated base stations down to the tide gauges? This would seem a no-brainer thing to do given the angst over SL rise? Of course one can see the reason why climateers would rather not do anything to validate the tide gauges. It would also validate satellite measures. We may need to fund a project a la surfacestations. org.

Editor
Reply to  Gary Pearse
March 29, 2017 10:59 am

Gary Pearse ==> The National Geodetic Survey (NGS), an office of NOAA’s National Ocean Service, manages a network of Continuously Operating Reference Station (CORS) — https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/CORS/ — which measure the movement of the land masses at various points, including vertical movement.

pameladragon
Reply to  Gary Pearse
March 29, 2017 12:15 pm

Yes, indeed, some of us do actually go out in the field and perform actual measurements using a transit and rod. We also search for other obvious signs of sea level rise, like overwash fans and alterations to wave cut notches and the animals that live there. This is a link to a PPT of our recent work in Fiji, the beginning of a larger work on sea levels.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315490083_The_Fiji_New_Sea_Level_Project

PMK

troe
March 29, 2017 9:15 am

What a bunch of nuts. Next you’ll claim that the continents are drifting around. Settled science people. AGW is causing sea levels to rise at an alarming rate placing our most vulnerable citizens the elderly, sick, slow, mobility challenged, non-swimmers, small children, and generally lazy at risk. I propose a crash program of EV sustainably sourced and built motorised sofas for quick escape.

March 29, 2017 9:18 am

There are about 70 PSMSL tide gauges with a differential GPS land motion correction within 10km. Of these, about 40 have long records. Those suggest a SLR of 2.1-2.2mm/yr and no acceleration according to SLR expert Nils Axel-Moerner. Moreover, that rate closes with an estimate of sea level rise based on the sum of ice sheet loss (Greenland, Antarctica based on GRACE) plus thermosteric rise based on ARGO. Once GRACE Antarctica is corrected for GIA using diff GPS rather than models (subject of a McIntyre post) the closrue sum is about 2.2-2.3mm/yr, remarkably good agreement considering the uncertainties. So any variation from ~2.1-2.2 is due to local conditions. For example Bangkok is subsiding rapidly due to groundwater extraction from unconsolidated river sediments.

March 29, 2017 9:28 am

This is gravity anomaly map in from the Goce satellite data
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/world/10/goce_gravity_field/img/goce_gravity_field_786map.gif
Highest positive anomaly is in two highly tectonic (volcanic) active areas:
– far north Atlantic location of the great ocean conveyor belt pump
– Solomon seas, with the strong elNino’s association
both principal factors of the natural climate variability.

March 29, 2017 10:41 am

Most interesting post. Thank you to Rich Taylor for assembling this data. I guess those reading it will take away from it what they will, according to their preconceived ideas. My take is that, all told, it is VERY unfrightening.

For a greater perspective, I would be interested to see a table of the average trend at each port city set against the spring tidal range for the same places. This varies greatly according to location, with the lowest ranges in the Mediterranean, and some of the highest in the Atlantic. One can imagine that a rise of 2-3mm/yr would be unnoticed over centuries in much of the Atlantic but would, over time, be an issue for the Med (Venice anyone?)

March 29, 2017 11:14 am

Here’s a nice six minute YouTube that pages through NOAA tide gauge charts showing how they match up against the 1.8 meters by 2100 projections from the the IPCC:

richard verney
Reply to  Steve Case
March 30, 2017 3:16 am

Sorry, I did not notice that you have already linked to this video; I only quickly viewed some comments and jumped to the end of the thread.

It might also be worth pointing out the latest NASA finding on Antarctica. See: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.

According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.

AND, the take home:

The extra snowfall that began 10,000 years ago has been slowly accumulating on the ice sheet and compacting into solid ice over millennia, thickening the ice in East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica by an average of 0.7 inches (1.7 centimeters) per year. This small thickening, sustained over thousands of years and spread over the vast expanse of these sectors of Antarctica, corresponds to a very large gain of ice – enough to outweigh the losses from fast-flowing glaciers in other parts of the continent and reduce global sea level rise.

Zwally’s team calculated that the mass gain from the thickening of East Antarctica remained steady from 1992 to 2008 at 200 billion tons per year, while the ice losses from the coastal regions of West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula increased by 65 billion tons per year.

“The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”

(my emphasis)

Gloateus
March 29, 2017 11:37 am

Rather than accept NOAA’s bogus post-glacial land adjustments, how about just looking at the sites least affected by glacial and tectonic uplift or down thrust? Africa and Australia come to mind. Maybe Atlantic South America, Dunno how much its east coast is affected by subduction in the west.

sbaer
March 29, 2017 12:54 pm

Wow. A whole century of data. Now compare it to what? Good work but meaningless in the broad scheme of things. Also someone mentioned not rebuilding seaside homes. Excellent. Barrier reefs especially are here and gone in an historical blink of an eye.

March 29, 2017 1:46 pm

Meaningless bunk, produced by snowflakes and flat earthers in an attempt to shift wealth from producers to slackers and takers. Good luck with that, playing chicken little is amusing, until you want to take my money or your bogus science fantasy scenarios border on Orwellian wet dreams. Go cure cancer.

Neil Jordan
March 29, 2017 2:18 pm

The plethora of numbers, predictions, projections, and whatnot are just that. Someone, somewhere, will need to actually build something. Someone will need to make an engineering decision to roll up his sleeve and scoop some numbers out of the stinking quagmire of marginal statistics and use them to build something.

That happened in 2000, for a project that needed to consider future sea level rise.
The envelope, please.
(Opens envelope with great drama)
The winner is 0.9 ft by 2087.

Documentation is here:
Final EIR/EIS for the Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Project
https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/4670333
http://www.worldcat.org/title/final-eireis-for-the-bolsa-chica-lowlands-restoration-project/oclc/46913652

Appendix B – Preliminary Engineering Studies Section B.3.1.4 Hydraulic Control
“The National Council Marine Board (NMCB) has provided sea level rise predictions over the next hundred years as summarized in Table B-4. For the 100-year interval, 0.9 feet would be added to the tailwater elevation. . .”

TABLE B-4 RECOMMENDED FUTURE SEA LEVEL
RISE VERSUS TIME INTERVAL
Interval (Years) Sea Level Rise (feet)
5 –
25 0.2
50 0.5
100 0.9
Source: NMCB, 1987

Chris in oz
March 29, 2017 3:18 pm

I think the key question is not whether the rise is 1.3mm/y or 1.5mm/yr – or similar – and what proportion of that is “man made” – but whether 1.3mm or 1.5mm has any significant consequences. If the answer is no or not much that can’t be managed, then the debate over the fractions of rise is a bit pointless. 1.3mm or 1.5mm or 2mm or year is not a very scary number…

observa
March 29, 2017 3:22 pm

So let’s look at a very ancient and weathered continent that’s not moving very much nowadays and welcome to one of the longest recorded man made tide gauges in Gondwanaland-
“One of the oldest tide gauge benchmarks in the world is at Port Arthur in south-east Tasmania. When combined with historical tide gauge data (found in the London and Australian archives) and recent sea level observations, it shows that relative sea level has risen by 13.5 cm from 1841 to 2000.”
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_few_hundred.html
So that’s an average sea level rise of 0.85mm/year for over one and a half centuries.

But in suburban Adelaide we have an even longer temporal tide gauge than that in the Hallet Cove Conservation Park, that none other than the current Premier Jay Weatherill recognised as a very important historical geological site when he proudly proclaimed it thus as Environment Minister in 2010. What does that tide gauge tell us all Premier? Let me remind a busy man trying to disprove the fundamental axiom of engineering that you can’t build a reliable system from unreliable componentry-
http://sa.gsa.org.au/Brochures/HallettCoveBrochure.pdf

“6. Shore platform
The level shore platform has been eroded by wave
action across the rocky coastline during the past
7000 years. The big fold was formed during the
mountain building about 500 million years ago.
During the Recent ice age about 20 000 years ago,
sea level was about 130 metres lower than today
and South Australia’s coastline was about 150
kilometres south of where Victor Harbor now is.
The ice cap started to melt about 15 000 years ago.
Sea level began to rise and reached its present level
about 6000–7000 years ago”

Now that could be an average annual sea level rise of 16.25mm/year over 8000 years. Can you now explain to us all Premier how the clever climatologists can extract the anthropogenic CO2 signal from the more recent sea level gauge in Tasmania compared to the one on our back doorstep? After all with Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, isn’t sea level rise the ultimate test of it whereby the sea rises because of thermal expansion or melting of snow and ice on land or the polar ice caps? Or was that 8000 year rise due to aboriginal cooking fires and traditional burnoffs to flush out game?

Gregory Ludvigsen
March 29, 2017 8:27 pm

For my bemusement. At the end of the last Ice age sea levels were about 375 feet lower than today. Than is 114,300 mm. Divided by 15,000 years – means since the last ice age ended sea level has been rising about 7.62 mm per year on average. Amazing how all of that coral survived

March 29, 2017 10:06 pm

the evs system in human is use in bad thinking

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Watts Up With That? wrote:

> Guest Blogger posted: “Guest essay by Rich Taylor Abstract Human > population is becoming increasingly urban, and most of the world’s largest > and fastest-growing cities border tidewater. This note presents charts of > annual-value (AV) tide-gauge records in or near major coastal ” >

March 29, 2017 10:27 pm

I am rising, or my body. Some 5 mm each year, when I lay in my bed in Lempäälä, Finland 🙂 The land uplift in Nordics gain land for Finns. http://www.fgi.fi/fgi/themes/land-uplift
http://www.fgi.fi/fgi/sites/default/files/Poutanen-Fennoskandia.png

richard verney
March 30, 2017 3:05 am

A serious dose of sanity is required.

The best insight into what is actually happening is to consider the actual data from tide gauges from around the world.

There is nothing global about the changes in sea level, and this suggests that the expansion due to any warming of the oceans is not the dominant driver.

It is well worth spending 5 minutes watching the below linked video.

Reply to  richard verney
March 30, 2017 4:48 am

richard verney March 30, 2017 at 3:16 am
Sorry, I did not notice that you have already linked to this video …

The real sorry state of affairs is that it has had less than 2,000 views and only 9 comments, and 3 of them are mine.

oppti
March 30, 2017 3:31 am

As You started with Brest it might be interesting to see the trend:
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/global_50yr.htm?stnid=190-091
The change was 2.28 mm/year 1920 and is now 1,72 mm/year.
Periodicity in the figures!

oppti
Reply to  oppti
March 30, 2017 3:35 am

You statement “The trend for the last 100 years has been 1.5 mm/y, likely due to thermal expansion of sea water and the net transfer of water from continental aquifers to the ocean.” is falsified with above!

oppti
Reply to  oppti
March 30, 2017 4:03 am

There are a few stations with long records. The 50 year average trend, shown above, is very important to study. Conclusion as above is easily falsified.

March 30, 2017 9:30 am

Have us humans been factored in? each one of us 7 billion or so holds 50-100 liters of water that would otherwise go to the sea. I guess.

March 30, 2017 11:48 am

The Maassluis gauge has the longest record; it sits about 15 km from the North Sea on the Maas channel that takes most of the flow through the Rhine (etc.) delta. Its 1.8-mm/y trend is also the average 100-year trend of the six long-standing gauges (Vlissingen, Maassluis, Hoek van Holland, Ijmuiden, Den Helder, Harlingen and Delfzijl) that monitor sea level for the Netherlands.

Henry says

I have no problem with these measurements, except for making/asking two points
namely
1) how have the instruments measuring this, changed over time? When, where, what changed.
2) the measurement does not only indicate sea level rise but also a drop in the bottom of the ocean?Florida is a case in point.

Another valid point I would make is that to present an actual global average [increase] you must present a sample that is balanced by latitude. Namely, my various data T analyses show an increasing chance that the warming in the NH is not balanced by warming in the SH. The ultimate conclusion from my data is that earth’s inner core must have moved a bit, more north-east, as noted by the movement of earth’s magnetic north pole.

Let me know what you think.