Guest essay by Philip Lloyd
There is a general belief that the observed sea level rise of about 1.5mm per year (according to tide gauges) and 3mm per year (from satellite measurements) is partly due to heating of the oceans and their consequent expansion.
If, however, you look at the estimates of sea temperatures, you soon find things that don’t add up. For instance, the latest IPCC Assessment Report gives:
Five different data sets agreeing so well? Miracles happen, but this seems unlikely. A bit more digging, and you discover that most of the pre-1960 data was taken by bucket sampling. It was found that the sample cooled by about 0.2oC due to evaporation, so the data were adjusted upwards. From 1960 to the 1980s, the sample was water drawn in to cool the ship’s engines, but that was found to be warmed by conduction by about 0.6oC, so it was adjusted downwards. Finally we settled on electronic thermometers carried by buoys, with modern versions able to take depth profiles. So the five data sets are the result of lots of adjustments, which perhaps explains why they agree so well.
You will notice that satellite measurements are absent. The reason is that satellite instruments can only measure the temperature of the top few millimetres of the ocean’s surface. When it is calm, the sun can heat the water to over 40oC, when a metre deeper it is 30oC, so the satellite reads high. When it is stormy, cold water mixes with the surface water, and the satellite reads low.
This means it is essential to record the depth at which the temperature is measured. Over the upper 100m, the temperature drops quite rapidly with depth, then drops more slowly. The profile changes with the season, a change which is more pronounced in the higher latitudes. From about 500m the temperature drops more sharply with depth, but the profile is reasonably constant with latitude. It reaches a minimum of close to 0oC below about 1 500m.
The IPCC chart of average ocean temperatures does not reflect the depth at which the “surface temperature” is measured, so this is a further reason to be suspicious. But even if we take the chart at face value, does it look as if it could be a major driver of sea level?
To test this hypothesis, I looked at tide gauge records. A typical one is from the German port of Wismar; monthly data are continuous from 1848:
The linear regression on the raw data indicates an average rate of increase of 1.42±0.08mm per year. Shown in red is the linear regression for the period 1910 to 1950, and in yellow for the period 1980 to 2015, both of which are barely distinguishable from the long-term regression shown by the black line.
Yet the IPCC tells us that the oceans were warming quite rapidly during these periods. If so, there should have been some acceleration in the measured rate of rise of the sea level. None was observed.
A recent study[1], based upon the solubility of rare gas isotopes, suggests that the oceans have warmed by less than 0.1oC in the past 50 years. The evidence against increasing global temperatures being the cause of sea level rises is growing.
[1] Scripps Institution of Oceanography 2018. New study identifies thermometer for past global ocean temperatures. https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/new-study-identifies-thermometer-past-global-ocean and Nature 553, 39–44 (04 January 2018) doi:10.1038/nature25152
The Global Warming of Doom hysteria about sea levels is total nonsense. At any location, the local sea level is dominated by land movements, not temperature or climate change. And worldwide, coastal land areas over the past 30 years have actually increased (e.g. from river silting and land uplift) more than they have decreased (e.g. from subsidence), as revealed from actual satellite observations (e.g. Deltares Aqua Monitor). If global warming were a significant factor in local sea levels, the coastal land areas worldwide would be decreasing, not increasing.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n9/full/nclimate3111.html
http://www.deltares.nl/en/news/how-the-earth-has-changed-over-the-past-30-years/
Sea water temperature driven sea level rise is of course a very tricky one. Water has its highest density at around 4 degrees Celsius so warming colder ocean water to 4 degrees Celsius will lower sea levels,warming warmer sea water (than 4 degrees Celsius) will make sea levels rise. Note that the average ocean water temperature is around 3,5 degrees Celsius but sea surface level temperature is significantly higher on average. I do not like the “general belief” statement choose an article by an author who makes a proper claim. And I like the choice of the Baltic city of Wismar even less, located on swampy shore of a brackish sea with ample human influence on water flow.
Because the exchange rate in water between the warmer pelagic zone and underlying cold layers is so low (0.1%/year) that’s not a big factor in thermic water expansion.
Long ago, in the World of Ice and Snow, the Florida peninsula was considerably larger than it is now. Here’s a NOAA article showing the map of Florida’s dry land during the last glacial maximum. http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/12newworld/background/sealevel/sealevel.html
So basically, cold weather traps water as ice and snow, reducing water levels until things thaw, when warm weather melts the ice and snow and raises water levels.
Oh, yeah, before I forget, the Great Lakes long ago covered a land mass MUCH larger than what they cover now. They’ve receded considerably, but that can change. The water levels in Lake Michigan fluctuate constantly with precipitation volume, which is related to rain, ice cover and snow melting. Lake Michigan has dropped as much as three feet overall in hot summers (evaporation) and risen the same amount of more (precipitation) over many years.
You could probably get the same results from Lake Baikal in Siberia if you took the time.
So what was the question again?
That made me think.
We know that the underground cavities that cause sinkholes in places like Florida are constantly forming and growing.
World wide, how much water is being contained in these growing cavities?
That;’s a good question, Mark W. I don’t think anyone is really measuring the volume. I do know that some of those sinkholes are fed by springs, but not what the volume is. And how many of them are being depleted because of amusement theme parks like Disney World and Universal Studios’ theme park in Orlando?
Trillions of Dollars Wasted on a False Alarm and Fraud
Ecoimperalists used this island, starving polar bears and other emotional tactics to push an eco-fascist agenda costing in the trillions and trillions of dollars that could be spent on far more pressing and important issues. The problem by is, basing the entire reason for your existence on a lie you are certain to be disappointed by the facts. It turns out Tuvalu isn’t sinking into a swamp, it is actually INCREASING IN SIZE.
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/02/11/trillions-of-dollars-wasted-on-a-false-alarm-and-fraud/
1.5 mm/year according to tide gauges sounds low to me. This WUWT article says 1.85 mm/year average for the 20th century according to 23 tide gauges on geologically stable land:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/16/is-sea-level-rise-accelerating/
“When it is calm, the sun can heat the water to over 40oC, when a metre deeper it is 30oC, so the satellite reads high. When it is stormy, cold water mixes with the surface water, and the satellite reads low.”
That’s interesting.
“Do rising temperatures cause rising sea levels?”
We live in ice box climate which means cold oceans- cold in terms of average temperature of entire ocean, rather than the surface temperature of oceans. The other characteristic of ice box climate is having polar ice caps. But entire ocean being warm doesn’t allow polar ice caps, so I would say ice box climate equals cold ocean. And warming the cold ocean causes sea level rise and causes rising average global temperatures.
The ocean surface temperature is directly correlated to global average temperatures. but entire ocean average temperature controls ocean surface temperature.
The current average temperature of entire ocean is about 3.5 C. And in warmest times of our ice box climate- which has been going on now for millions of years, the average temperature of the oceans is about 4 C or warmer. And during glacial periods the average ocean temperature can get to about 1 C.
But as is said above: “when it is calm, the sun can heat the water to over 40oC”
and this can occur during glacier periods, but of course the global average temperature of surface of ocean is colder during glacial periods.
So presently our average ocean surface temperature is about 17 C and average land surface is 10 C. Or the 70% of our surface area is ocean and it’s average surface temperature is 17, while about 30% of surface is land area has average temperature of about 10 C- which gives global average surface temperature of about 15 C. And as said with entire ocean having average temperature of 3.5 C.
During the last interglacial period, which is called Eemian, the average temperature of the entire ocean got to about 4 C or warmer and sea levels reached levels 5 meters or higher than present sea level.
Which indicate during Eemian, the average surface temperature of the oceans was higher than 17 C, which increase the global average temperature and increased the average land temperature- and would particularly warm land area, outside the tropics. Or the polar regions would been much warmer [and for instance, Germany was warmer and had tropical creatures living there]..
Interesting, but I think you’re missing a larger point… the overall average ocean temperature temp probably is correlated pretty strongly to sea level rise (at various levels of glaciation, with an equilibrium for current conditions lying somewhere around LIA temp), and of course it’s far more massive than the top layers we have good data for (drunk, keys, streetlamp).
Of course, that temperature has barely changed since 1950, to the extent anyone’s made educated guesses about it, so it doesn’t make for scary graphs.
But hey… if you want to see an alarmist’s head spin, ask them what temperature they think would prevent sea level rise (HINT: THEY WOULDN’T LIKE THOSE TEMPS).
“But hey… if you want to see an alarmist’s head spin, ask them what temperature they think would prevent sea level rise (HINT: THEY WOULDN’T LIKE THOSE TEMPS).”
The temperature of Little Ice age- in which sea levels fell, so keep same or a tiny bit warmer or somehow have just having warmer periods of Little Ice age should work. So the warmer times of pre-industrial era. And that is what they say they want- a world with less capitalism, in which kings ruled, rather than the Markets ruling.
In terms of temperature, it’s like moving more poleward.
Globally growing crops, takes a bit hit. And I was just looking up China’s average temperature:
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/china
So presently it’s average is a bit warmer than 7.5 C and 1850 AD it was about 6 C
How about France [center and birthplace of the lefty world]:
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/france
Presently about 14 C and in 1850 AD: about 12.5 C
France probably not have much problems growing crops if was around 12 to 13 C
What about Poland:
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/poland
So now almost 9 C and 1850 AD: less than 7.5 C
I would say Poland would worse off than China- as china grows a lot of crops nearer warmer coastal [and southern] regions.
Note the latest:
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2018/anomnight.2.12.2018.gif
A warm anomaly situated in the Tasman Sea (between NZ and Aus) is dispersing. This gave NZ the warmest Jan on record . But just look at the cold global anomalies now. I don’t ever recall them being this predominate.
What is going on?
Regards
M
Whatever is going on, just remember that it’s weather not climate.
Unless it’s warmer than usual, than it’s the other way around.
It’s La Niña, when you see that cold anomaly in the eastern tropical Pacific the winds are blowing towards New Guinea and cold water comes to the surface off Peru and Ecuador. This brings rain during the dry season to Venezuela and I’m sure it cools down the atmosphere. I would expect the February anomaly to be lower than January.
Can you post a link? What’s the base period?
This is rather a different view (scroll down; there are two)
http://www.stirimeteo.com/2018/02/12/global-meteo-overview-12-feb-2018/
There has been some discussion of the advisability of using Wismar as an example. There were many tide gauges I could have used; Wismar seemed particularly suitable because it was so complete a record and the record was so long. As a matter of interest, the F statistic on the raw data trend is 2.23E-198, which is about as probable a trend as you could find anywhere. Moreover, the residuals on the data have a mean of 4E-13, as close to zero as one could imagine, and a standard deviation of 90.9. It is good data.
New paper out today claiming acceleration in sea level rise: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/02/06/1717312115
Today CNN produced a scary article about accelerated sea level rise. The indoctrination continues.
How can you be so sure you are not the one indoctrinated when you spend time at a site like this?
Not that this is necessarily aiming to indoctrinate, but it sure is good for
bias confirmation
Kristi:
Warmists should visit these sites on the basis of: “Know thine enemy”.
Skeptics should visit these sites on the basis of: “Know thine enemy”.
There is much to be learnt here and much to be ignored. Depends on which prejudice you happen to have.
Kristi Silber
Not indoctrinated. Properly educated, with the propaganda and exaggerations removed, analyzed, and dis-proven.
I believe that there is no reason why the tide gauges and satellite measurements should show the same rate of rise.
If the surface warms and expands the water becomes less dense and floats on the colder denser water beneath it, causing the average surface, as measured by satellites, to rise. It will not cause the tide gauge levels to change as these are located where the depth of the ocean is effectively zero. It is the same as an ice cube or a balloon of hot water floating in a glass full of cold water, as the ice melts or the hot water cools the average surface will change but the level of water in the glass will stay constant (provided that the volume of the glass or oceans is large enough that the average temperature of all the water stays the same).
Both methods of measurement will, of course, show rises due to melting glacial ice or other sources of transfer of water from land areas to the sea.
Tide gage at Fort Dennison NSW shows a steady 0.65mm/year since 1860
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/global_50yr.htm?stnid=680-140
Sydney-a fine station for periodics
From my practical point of view, I’m more concerned with the actual sea level rise at the coasts regardless of the causes since all these causes affect people living in the coasts. The altimeter reading measuring sea level rise in the open ocean is irrelevant in this perspective. Global warming would be insignificant because local sea level variability is much greater. What’s 1.5 mm/yr when the high tide is 600 mm every day?
And what about Hansen stopping the water vapour measurements in 2009 after 20 years of showing no increase? They argued that due to calibration errors they couldnt be sure whether the water vapour was increasing or decreasing. Is anybody carrying out water vapour measurements?
You mean, is anyone measuring humidity?
Here are some satellite measurements of water vapor by NOAA:
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/atmosphere/mirs/tpw.html
They tell us the low temperature forecast for tomorrow based on knowing the dew point today. The low temperature is reached if the humidity reaches 100%. They frequently get the low temperatures very closely. If there is excess water vapor, fog and clouds form and precipitation removes it. The upper bound is limited by temperature and pressure and the lower bound is dry air.
Hansen did not stop measuring water vapor, he stopped reporting a meaningless number.
“You will notice that satellite measurements are absent. …When it is calm, the sun can heat the water to over 40oC,”
Often satellite SST datasets are nighttime temps only.
The problem for me isn’t about this particular tidal record, but that you only look at one. Why bother?
When you run a simple regression on this kind of data, you lose a sense of any regularities, such as oscillations; if present, that would invalidate the statistic. Did you plot the errors? What’s the r-squared? The records are so squeezed together on that plot, it would be impossible to see any sign of trends. Is regression the correct stat anyway? Regression is to test for a relationship between a predictor and a dependent variable. There is likely autocorrelation with these data; the errors wouldn’t be independent. I dunno, it’s been a long time since I did much with statistics, but I don’t know why you’d choose this.
“F statistic on the raw data trend is 2.23E-198, which is about as probable a trend as you could find anywhere”
What does this mean? I’m not familiar with an F statistic being used this way. Is there a p-value associated with your stats?
Water has an increased expansion rate with higher temp. You would expect there to be smoothing over time of the relationship between temperature and sea level when there’s mixing.
Acceleration in sea level rise is notoriously hard to show. Some have, some haven’t found it. The data are too noisy and too incomplete to detect a weak signal.
“The evidence against increasing global temperatures being the cause of sea level rises is growing.”
This is not a valid conclusion based on what you have presented (nor on the body of evidence as a whole). I’m surprised you even say it; I would expect you to know better. You have oversimplified the system, making implicit, invalid assumptions. You don’t even report the results of your statistics fully, and the statistics you chose are not good for picking up acceleration if it’s there. You used the record of a single tidal gauge to represent global sea levels. You give no alternative explanation for rising seas. What evidence? The lack of finding anything is not in itself evidence.
This is an example of setting out to try to show a point and make it look plausibly scientific, it is not science! (No offense, of course – scientists should be able to take criticism, right?)
If you really want to study the relationship between ocean temperature and sea level, maybe this will help: http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/3/e1601545.full
The first few paragraphs are illuminating for those who think mainstream science ignores uncertainty or that it doesn’t allow debate. They also show that modeling is always being improved. People think funding for this sort of research should be abandoned for lack of productivity in favor of trying to predict the future by reconstructing the past and other methods. How is that falsifiable? How would that lower uncertainty? It’s just another form of modeling! No, redirecting research is just an excuse for delaying policies to deal with the problem.
What is the R – squared? It is irrelevant. R-squared is a measure of the dispersion of the data about the trend, not about the trend itself. The trend is best defined as the change in the local mean with time. The error in the local mean is proportional to the root of the number of measurements, and is best defined by the F statistic. Is there a p-value? Yes, 1-2.23E-198, i.e. the chance of this trend arising by mere chance is less the 99.99999999999—————————————-999999777 %. The Excel addin function Regression will calculate it for you directly as part of its ANOVA output. There is no sign of autocorrelation. The residuals are normally distributed and the distribution showns no sign such as kurtosis from the normal curve. ” People think funding for this sort of research should be abandoned” – it has been, I don’t get paid for this!