From Eurekalert
Public Release: 8-Aug-2017
Untraditional approach expected to save lives, businesses, and communities along East Coast shows rate accelerating at a pace in contrast to previously accepted data
American Statistical Association
ALEXANDRIA, Va. (August 8, 2017) – While the scientific community has long warned about rising sea levels and their destructive impact on life, property and economies of some of the United States’ most populous cities, researchers have developed a new, statistical method that more precisely calculates the rate of sea level rise, showing it’s not only increasing, but accelerating. The research, methodology and current findings was presented by Andrew Parnell of University College Dublin at the Joint Statistical Meetings (JSM) last week in Baltimore.
The new approach contrasts with previous ways scientists analyzed and came to conclusions about sea level rise because it is “the only proper one that aims to fully account for uncertainty using statistical methods,” noted Parnell, principal investigator of the study conducted collaboratively with researchers at Tufts University, Rutgers University and Nanyang Technological University.
By examining two data sets, one that consisted of measurements from sediment along the East Coast from 2,000 years ago and another that included tide gauges around the world dating back to the 1800s, Parnell and his team discovered the data they gathered from years ago contained uncertainties. For instance, with more tide gauges deployed today than hundreds of years ago, recent records yielded more certainty than older ones. The team honed their statistical models to further take into account such uncertainties and possibly created a statistical first. “This likely is the first time a group of statisticians have had really close examination of sea level data,” said Parnell.
Parnell’s team has been able to show that sea level rise on the East Coast has been much less than 1 millimeter (mm) per year for the entire period 0 AD to 1800 AD, and, since then, it’s skyrocketed. In fact, they’ve discovered the rate of sea level rise on the East Coast is the highest it’s been for at least 2,000 years, and the rate of global sea level rise is above 1.7 mm per year, estimated by the International Panel on Climate Change. “Some people argue that sea levels are not rising. We are showing them that sea levels are not only rising, but accelerating,” continued Parnell.
From their analysis, researchers made additional observations, including the following:
- An increase in the rate of sea level change around the time period known as the “Medieval Climate Anomaly”
- A small decrease around the time of the “Little Ice Age”
- A rapid increase after the start of the Industrial Revolution
The new model has recently been put to the test in New York City, where the rate of sea level rise is more than 3 mm per year in an area that currently houses more than $25 billion of infrastructure at less than 1 meter above sea level. Researchers anticipate the model will be rolled out in other cities along the East Coast and hope governments will be receptive and prepared to take the issue of sea level rise seriously.
###
About JSM 2017
JSM 2017 is the largest gathering of statisticians and data scientists in the world, taking place July 29-August 3, 2017, in Baltimore. Occurring annually since 1974, JSM is a joint effort of the American Statistical Association, International Biometric Society (ENAR and WNAR), Institute of Mathematical Statistics, Statistical Society of Canada, International Chinese Statistical Association, International Indian Statistical Association, Korean International Statistical Society, International Society for Bayesian Analysis, Royal Statistical Society and International Statistical Institute. JSM activities include oral presentations, panel sessions, poster presentations, professional development courses, an exhibit hall, a career service, society and section business meetings, committee meetings, social activities and networking opportunities.
About the American Statistical Association
The ASA is the world’s largest community of statisticians and the oldest continuously operating professional science society in the United States. Its members serve in industry, government and academia in more than 90 countries, advancing research and promoting sound statistical practice to inform public policy and improve human welfare. For additional information, please visit the ASA website at http://www.amstat.org.
For more information:
Jill Talley
Public Relations Manager
(703) 684-1221, ext. 1865
…The new approach contrasts with previous ways scientists analyzed and came to conclusions about sea level rise because it is “the only proper one…”
…“This likely is the first time a group of statisticians have had really close examination of sea level data,” said Parnell…
Shocking. Climate scientists don’t get statisticians involved?
Once more I note the scientific vandalism in the assumptions.
It is simply wrong to assume that nothing of significance is happening in the lower half of the oceans, where measurements are far too sparse and far too recent to assume constant geometry, constant temperature, constant density etc that have to be assumed in all current ways to estimate sea level rise. Geoff
Geoff,
I’m not sure it is that complicated. I think that a calculation for heat-induced volume change is only necessary in the open ocean for water above the thermocline. However, things can get quite messy and convoluted near the shores. Although, you make a good point that if we don’t have good information on the rate of creation of new oceanic crust at spreading centers — past and present –, then we really don’t know how the volume of the basins is changing.
Meanwhile a shell fisherman from an island off Chesapeake Bay, who got the chance to question Al Gore, said that he has been fishing there since 1970 and the sea level has not changes at all. Obviously he needs educating.
Tangier Island is in the middle of Chesapeake Bay, and the gentleman you’re thinking of is a crabber named James Eskridge, who also happens to be the mayor of Tangier Island.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/08/03/tangier-mayor-disputes-cause-islands-land-loss-cnns-al-gore-town-hall/535327001/
http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/08/01/al-gore-climate-crisis-town-hall-tangier-island-trump-sot.cnn
Tangier island is very slowly eroding, and probably also slowly sinking (like most of that region), though there’s no tide gauge there to measure it. There’s a seawall protecting parts of the island from erosion. It needs a seawall to protect the rest of the island.
Curbing CO2 emissions won’t do Tangier Island any good. Reducing CO2 emissions might even hurt matters a little bit.
I can already guess what they omitted. So-called sea level rise is counterbalanced by earthquake-caused uplifting of the land. The usual assumption is that uplifting and downdropping balance out, but in fact almost all such tectonic events are uplifting, and cancels out the so-called sea level rise. The sea rises monotonically, the land rises in individual events the cumulative effect of which is overlooked in studies like this.
Here’s one which wasn’t uplifting:
http://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=9455090&c_date=1964/4-2019/12&datasource=noaa
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9455090
http://sealevel.info/9455090_Seward_problem_solved.png
Seward, Alaska got a full meter of sea-level rise… in one day. Must be those darn SUVs they drive up there.
Statisticians pretending to do geology and oceanography. No better than geologists pretending to be climatologists (e.g. Mann, Oreskes etc.)
I’d like to see the American Statistical Association examine the statistics Mann used that created his hockey stick…
Serious statisticians have examined Mannian stats including the former chair of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Theoretical and Applied Statistics. See Steve McIntyre’s The Wegman and North Reports for Newbies from November 6, 2007 at climateaudit.org/2007/11/06/the-wegman-and-north-reports-for-newbies/
I would love to see Steve McIntyre’s opinion on the statistics used by Parnell et al in their paper.
My father in law has a house in Outer Banks NC. It’s 10ft above sea level. At 1.7mm per year, it will take about 1800 years until his garage floor is under water and he’ll have to move his BMW. I think I’ll advise him to sell the place at pennies to the dollar….TO ME!!!!
Mathematicians, does this analysis make sense? Taking proper account of uncertainties in older data compared to modern data would simply produce larger uncertainty bands around the older data. It would not change the average sea level rise. The only way to calculate a lower average in the past would be to adjust or “correct” the data for some newly discovered error source. What am I missing?
Exactly. And on a simple basis, if you add uncertainty to your data, you surely add it both ways? Thus in this case, how do you know that the increased range of the data is on the “too high” side rather than the “too low side”? We simply cannot know. The only way to produce a “too high” result is to claim there is a systematic reason why the data is more likely to be in error only one way. The idea you can do that simply via statistics is nonsense. Somewhere in their work there is a fudge.
Once again, someone trying to prove the Earth has warmed, when we already know it has warmed. It is actually astounding, given the warming we know has occurred, that there isn’t a strong signal showing unambiguous acceleration in sea level rise.
The question is the cause of the warming. The existence of warming does not provide information necessary to settle that question.
I don’t follow your logic.
If the warming was occurring at a steady rate (questionable) and coupled with SLR why would there necessarily be an acceleration in SLR. There seems to be a confusion between increasing at a steady rate and acceleration.Only if there were an acceleration in warming that might cause acceleration of SLR if they were coupled.
Because Obama said the SLR is accelerating (which it is not according to Tide Gauge data). It appears that the climatologists are either trying to support Obama’s Lie or to intentionally deceive the public who don’t know the difference between acceleration and increasing at a steady rate.
Using the term acceleration has been intentionally abused when talking about SLR like the term acidification of something that is not an acid. This is intended to have the effect on those who have no clue about Physics or chemistry and allow the MSM to excite the masses about global warming/climate change..
“If the warming was occurring at a steady rate (questionable) and coupled with SLR why would there necessarily be an acceleration in SLR.”
Because it is a long term response. SLR has been increasing steadily for about 6000 years. This shows it is striving for a steady state it has not yet reached. When it gets warmer, it should approach that steady state faster.
0.003 m/y. 1 m will take 333.3 years.
Tis is not a novel or new approach at all.
It is simply a proof of the proverb that states:
“Numbers don’t lie, but liars do use numbers”.
Isn’t this another case of cherry-picked data? The North American continent is slowly tilting. This is aided and abetted by tectonic movements. If the same exercise was performed on the West Coast of the US what would be the outcome? No sea level rise at all?
However, over a long period of time, irrespective of sea level rise all fall, infrastructure on the East coast of the US is going to be threatened by this tilting. Let’s hope a big earthquake on the New Madrid fault line doesn’t hasten the process.
Then I guess you agree with our astute congressman that the Pacific Island will tilt over into the sea if we station to many troops and aircraft on it.
Sarc/off
There’s more:
Data and code (DOI: 10.1214/15-AOAS824SUPP; .zip). We provide the tidegauge
and proxy reconstructed data for both case studies. We also supply the R
code and JAGS code needed to run the S-IGP and EIV-IGP models described.
N. CAHILL
A. C. PARNELL
SCHOOL OF MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES
COMPLEX AND ADAPTIVE SYSTEMS LABORATORY
EARTH INSTITUTE
UNIVERSITY COLLGE DUBLIN
BELFIELD
DUBLIN 4
IRELAND
E-MAIL: niamh.cahill.2@ucdconnect.ie
andrew.parnell@ucd.ie
A. C. KEMP
DEPARTMENT OF EARTH AND OCEAN SCIENCES
TUFTS UNIVERSITY
2 NORTH HILL ROAD
MEDFORD, MASSACHUSETTS 02155
USA
E-MAIL: andrew.kemp@tufts.edu
B. P. HORTON
DEPARTMENT OF MARINE AND COASTAL SCIENCES
AND INSTITUTE OF EARTH, OCEAN
AND ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES
RUTGERS UNIVERSITY
71 DUDLEY ROAD
NEW BRUNSWICK, NEW JERSEY 08901
USA
AND
THE EARTH OBSERVATORY OF SINGAPORE
AND ASIAN SCHOOL OF THE ENVIRONMENT
NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
50 NANYANG AVE
SINGAPORE 639798
E-MAIL: bphorton@marine.rutgers.edu
matthewrmarler ,
Thank you for the opportunity to remove my ignorance.
The American Statistical Association press release quoted led me to believe that Parnell and “his team” were statisticians. I see from the Tufts website that Kemp is a ‘specialist’ in “Coastal Processes and Climate Change.” Now, if his specialty was paleoclimatology I would be less skeptical about any bias in his research. However, climate “change” does raise some questions about objectivity. The Tufts website says nothing about him specifically having a background in the areas I was recommending. Indeed, his undergraduate degree was apparently in physical geography. The link to his research just shows a picture of a boat. His CV isn’t much more reassuring; I can’t find a title for his dissertation in his CV. Thus, I can’t completely remove my ignorance about whether he has any expertise in isostasy, paleontology, or historical geology in general. However, perhaps the title to his most recent grant tells us all we really need to know: ” Reconstructing animal populations in east Africa using FECAL sterol markers.”
I’m afraid I’ve lost my enthusiasm for further reducing my ignorance.
It is clear we are getting too many environmentalist and climate scientists, so we are seeing the same type of problem we have in the USA caused by too many lawyers.
Now there is a “SCHOOL OF MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES, COMPLEX AND ADAPTIVE SYSTEMS LABORATORY”
What next?
Interesting article in the NYT recently:
“The Sea Level Did, in Fact, Rise Faster in the Southeast U.S.” (due to weather)
“Instead, they found that two large atmospheric patterns most likely accounted for the hot spot off the Southeast coast: the El Niño cycle and the North Atlantic Oscillation, which is a shift in atmospheric pressure over the ocean that can have large effects on the winds blowing toward the American coast.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/09/climate/the-sea-level-did-in-fact-rise-faster-in-the-southeast-us.html
a new, statistical method that more precisely calculates the rate of sea level rise, showing it’s not only increasing, but accelerating.
Well, thank goodness. I thought we had run out of scientific creativity.
How about new more accurate and pervasive measurements?
(Hit CR too soon)
“By examining two data sets, one that consisted of measurements from sediment along the East Coast from 2,000 years ago and another that included tide gauges around the world dating back to the 1800s,”
That’s stupid! Comparing sediment proxy to tide gauges. I’ve heard that before – Mann hockey stick! Are these guys really scientists? Oh no they’re statisticians
“Parnell and his team discovered the data they gathered from years ago contained uncertainties. For instance, with more tide gauges deployed today than hundreds of years ago, recent records yielded more certainty than older ones.”
What a hoax! Tide gauges deployed HUNDREDS of years ago? The tide gauge was invented around 1830. Less than two hundred years ago. Less than two is singular not plural. Before that, they just dip a pole in the water. Comparing different measuring methods. Sounds familiar? Smells like “Mike’s nature trick”
Dr. Strangeglove wrote, “The tide gauge was invented around 1830. Less than two hundred years ago…”
Actually, PSMSL has long sea-level measurement records from Brest, France starting in 1907, and from Swinoujscie, Poland starting in 1811. Additionally, they describe some early, fragmentary measurement records from the late 18th century, here.
There’s not much to a basic tide gauge, really. You can do a pretty good job of measuring sea-level with nothing more than measuring stick (a “tide pole” or “tide staff”) in a stilling well, measured by hand on a schedule synchronized with the tides.
typo correction: “1907” should be “1807” (of course)
” in an area that currently houses more than $25 billion of infrastructure at less than 1 meter above sea level. ”
I’m certain (but someone else can do the math), that the incremental cost of just filling it in over time is exceptionally small compared just to the real estate taxes being paid on the “at risk” properties. (What does it cost to add 2 feet of fill per acre per CENTURY?) It’s definitely exceptionally small to the 2+ billion dollar per year cost of keeping this moronic hoax alive.
There is a new study in the news today: http://news.ufl.edu/articles/2017/08/east-coasts-rapidly-rising-seas-explained.php
It seems that subsidence is not a part of their vocabulary. If this is a transitory change related to pressure differences, how is it functionally different from wind piling up water along the shore or low-pressure weather causing temporary changes? It appears to be part of the background noise and not the signal of global warming.
“What was most extraordinary was that the result gave direct and strong support to the alarmist political agenda pursued by me and all my mates. This was a completely unexpected result. However it means that it’s much worse than we thought, and we must act now.”
After years of messing with historical temperature data, now the warmistas have begun messing with historical sea level data. Shameless.