Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The United Nations has just warned the world that last year sea level rise hit an unprecedented 3.7mm.
Climate change is making the seas rise faster than ever, UN warns
28 March 2019
By Adam Vaughan
Sea levels across the world are rising faster than ever, the United Nations has warned, meaning we urgently need to increase action on climate change.
In a report released on Thursday, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), a UN agency, painted a dire picture of all the key indicators of global warming.
The last four years were the warmest on record, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are at record levels and rising, and a global average sea level rise of 3.7 millimetres in 2018 outstripped the average annual increase over the past three decades.
The findings in the group’s annual State of the Climate report will bolster efforts by António Guterres, the UN secretary-general, to make governments commit to more ambitious carbon cuts at a landmark summit in September.
“There is no longer any time for delay,” wrote Guterres in a foreword to the report.
Last year was the fourth warmest on record, bringing the global temperature 1°C warmer on average than before the industrial revolution.
Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2198091-climate-change-is-making-the-seas-rise-faster-than-ever-un-warns/
…
The WMO Press Release is available here, the actual report is available here.
Of course the report predicts more rapid sea level rise in the future. From page 16 of the report:
Over the period January 1993 to December 2018, the average rate of rise was 3.15 ± 0.3 mm yr-1, while the estimated acceleration was 0.1 mm yr-2.
Even if the UN estimate is correct, starting from 3.15mm per year this would result in a sea level rise of around:
d = vt + 0.5at2
d = 3.15 x 80 + 0.5 x 0.1 x 802
d = 572mm or just under 2ft of sea level rise by the end of the century.
I hope you all have your coastal evacuation plans ready. If this unprecedented rate of sea level rise per year continues, our children’s children might have to deal with 2ft of additional sea level by the end of this century. How will our grandchildren or great grandchildren cope with economic burden of constructing an extra foot or two of sea wall?
I was recently in Auckland NZ. I was enjoying a moment on one of the quasi private beaches that dot the bay at the end of every cul de sac around the coast road.
I noticed the sea rise by about 50 mm without any obvious reason. Then into view came a huge cruise liner generating a little bow wave.
It got me thinking how do you actually measure sea rise or sea level?
The variables that impact the site of the gauge or the signal from satellite ranging are real and some obvious others not.
Do the measurements take account of wind direction heaping the sea surface up local to the point of measurement? Do the measurements take account of the seismic effect of a minor movement out at sea causing the local ocean to rise by a few mm? Do the measurements compute tide variation with planet alignments? Do the measurements allow for wave length and scale? Do the measurements account for plate tectonic movement up and down local to the point of measurement.
The passing of large sea going ships is an obvious influence how is this factored in?
How about salinity changes following heavy outflows from large river systems.
The variables are almost infinite. So how reliable are these reported levels? Is it even possible to capture all the potential influences on the measurement and make allowance in the averages for them?
Over a year, noise swamps out the signal for sure. Over decades the signal, if above the noise, can be ascertained. In any case, historically, SL change has been much greater in both directions just within the past few millennia. SL was over 100 meters lower just 10 or 12 thousand years ago. On average it had to rise in 10’s of mm/year to get to where it is today.
It is just the opposite of what they say. Since October 2015 sea level rise has been below average. And if I am right it will continue being below average for a decade or two.
Holá Javier! ¿Eres serio sobre eso?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BFCiHTjEkj8LfNTIJFOqKpCyfeDOEegB/view
What would you have told us in… 2002? The same song?
Anyway: which average did you mean? Gauges 1880-2013 or gauges 1993-2018 or altimetry 1993-2017?
The graph you post shows that SLR since 2015 is at least flat, which is what Javier said, it being below the average of 1993-2018.
Earthling2
Are you eye-balling?
Averages:
– Gauges 1993-2018: +6.90
– Altim 1993-2017: +6.64
2015 looks a bit flatty indeed, but is WAY above average. What about a look at other places in the plots?
I wonder how they expect sea level to stay fixed when it never has. So last year was 0.25 mm above average and margin of error? A normal world. If you want sea side, accept the risks that go with it.
Amazing sea level acceleration despite loss of Greenland ice decelerated since 202 and gained ice the last 2 years. http://landscapesandcycles.net/sea-level-rise-conundrums-greenland-s-cycles.html
Satellites suggested sea level acceleratedby 3.5 mm/yr from 1993 to 2003. Then same analyses of new data had sea level rise decelerate to about 2.5 mm/yr.
Then the a flurry of various adjustments. These guys are so dishonest
Jim Steele
Thanks for the link inside to the Belgian paper.
What now concerns your comment above: I don’t understand exactly what you mean.
Why should Greenland’s SMB upshift automatically mean an SLR deceleration?
Aren’t there not enough other sources?
Who’da thunk it.
https://www.cntraveler.com/story/on-the-baltic-coast-of-sweden-and-finland-sea-levels-are-falling
Anyone want to calculate the displacement? Coz I can’t be arsed.
If you are interested there is a map here:
https://www.smhi.se/kunskapsbanken/oceanografi/landhojning-och-havsvatttenstand-1.3437
It is the same around Hudson Bay:
All because land has not yet rebounded after the ice melted 10,000 years ago.
From the article: “The last four years were the warmest on record,”
Does it look to you like the last four years were the warmest on record?
The UAH satellite chart:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_January_2019_v6.jpg
Tom Abbott
“Does it look to you like the last four years were the warmest on record?”
No. Certainly not about 5 km above surface, and more than certainly 5 km above the oceans.
But maybe 2 m above? (I mean measurement, and not Dr Ryan Maue’s reanalysis).
Is that 2m above asphalt, concrete, shingle, next to air conditioners, truck exhausts, and surrounded by increasing human development, with the “benefit” of subsequent adjustments? Or do you think it might be better to base your temperature data and conclusions on measurements taken a little further removed from human influence?
Fenlander
“Is that 2m above asphalt, concrete, shingle, next to air conditioners, truck exhausts, and surrounded by increasing human development, with the “benefit” of subsequent adjustments?”
Do you have the simplest idea of
– How many stations are really affected by this huge list of errors?
– How are actual temperature measurements made by stations processed?
My humble guess: no you don’t. Because if you did, you wouldn’t ask that way.
*
Recently, we were fortunate enough to look at one of the many stations you very probably would suspect of being a victim of their location:
Hmmmh. USCRN station ‘Stovepipe Wells’
USW00053139 36.6019 -117.1450 25.6 CA STOVEPIPE WELLS 1 SW CRN 74613
looks indeed suffering of the sum of all these drawbacks you mentioned above.
But as I looked at this poor station’s immediate neighbour, I found this:
USR0000CHNM 36.5625 -117.4736 2097.0 CA HUNTER MOUNTAIN CALIFORNIA
As you can see, the two stations differ in altitude by a lot. Two thousand meter! Should their temperature record not differ similarly?
But when you compare their temperature departures from a common mean, you see this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PFes9vlKFlELCnflL-WINhr0mkPlK_nf/view
How is that possible?
It is simply due to the fact that these departures are computed station by station, instead of being computed out of an anonymous average of things having nothing in common.
Thus two stations – one near a supermarket near sea, one in a very rural environment in the mountain – will indeed show very different absolute temperatures. But their departures from a common mean can be very similar.
Has everyone forgotten how desert water bags work? Why do I get the impression of a well-known, common, inescapable effect of water is being ignored? Latent Heat of Evaporation which is clearly shown in a desert water bag.
Desert water bags were traditionally made from a porous material like canvas, flax or linen. The bags were tightly woven to keep water in, but porous enough to allow a small amount to seep through the bag. A motorist could hang the bag on the outside of his vehicle or sling it across the hood during a drive, and the forward motion would evaporate the water that had seeped through the bag, cooling the water inside. As the water seeps through the porous cloth, the bag is covered in a film of, this water will then evaporate. Hikers even carried them to have cool water on trips in the desert areas or in warm areas. The process of evaporating takes energy from the system (called latent heat). This cools down the bottle. In a very dry environment, the surface water will even evaporate in the sun in a calm area without a breeze and provide some cooling.
This cooling effect from the latent heat of evaporation also works in an oven. This is demonstrated when you cook a roast. When you put your roast in an oven the moisture in the roast migrates to the surface. At the surface this moisture evaporates and provides a cooling effect to the roast. Just like the Desert Water bag or you when you sweat. At the point of the change in state from a liquid to water vapor there is insufficient energy in the heat energy to effect this transformation and as a result some of the needed energy is taken from the roast cooling it a small amount. I am not claiming or even trying to suggest that you can cool a chunk of meat by putting it in an oven. However, this cooling action slows down the cooking so that a roast in an oven at 350 degrees F will take much longer, remaining below 165 degrees F until the roast is DRY and can no longer have the cooling effect of evaporation. And once DRY it will quickly burn. Place a digital thermometer in a roast the next time you make one and plot the temperature every ten minutes as it cooks. Notice the shape of the curve and how quickly it increases exponentially in temperature as the roasr begins to dry. The reason you keep water in the roasting pan.
It is my opinion that this same effect is where the heat “Hiding in the bottom of the ocean” has really gone. The energy from the Sun that is hitting the surface of the ocean is not just heating the ocean it is also cooling the ocean! When the Suns energy hits the surface of the water it is insufficient to completely cause the evaporation and some of that energy is taken from the water causing the water to be cooled. Further, some of that energy could be coming from the air around the water cooling the air and then the water. And of course, these actions will be enhanced by the wind on the surface of the water.
Also, what about LAND. When the sun his land it dries out the soil. As this happens it also cools the soil until there is no longer any water to percolate up to the surface and evaporate. Usually, when there is no longer enough water to percolate up to the surface the land turns into a desert.
How much of the Suns energy is actually cooling the Globe?
Since there is more ocean area on the lower hemisphere, how is the rotation of the Earth at it’s 23-degree slant around an elliptical orbit effecting the input/output of energy into the Climate Change debate. Seems to me that using a fixed albedo number is NOT a good approximation. Especially considering the MASSIVE wind and ocean currents pumping those temperatures and energy around the globe.
And then there is the Latent Heat of Fusion/melting demonstrated in making Ice Cream in a hand cranked Ice Cream Maker. Energy/heat can be used to make things colder. Appears to me that the “Climate Scientists” are ignoring very important aspects of water. Does their Ideology prevent them from using their brain?
I have a difficult time SEEING three millimeters. Let alone applying it to the global ocean surface.
I bet that António Guterrez, Secretary-General of the United Nations, puts on more that 3.7 mm of fat to the circumference of his belly every year flying around in first class and private jets consuming food and beverages like the glutton that he appears to be.
Water vapor is highly reflective at 6 cm wave length. It is less reflective at 2.2 cm wavelength, but still rather reflective. Therefore, during times of dynamic water vapor content above the surface of the sea they must be employing a dynamic correction factor. The exact measurement is a guesstimate.
They can’t go lower wavelength than about 2 cm to further reduce the reflectivity to water vapor induced error, because at such short wavelengths water vapor begins to absorb the energy rather than reflect it. They would get no reliable returns.
Distance measurement with radar is a function of time. This applies to both distance measurement and distance resolution, which are not the same things. A pulse width of micro second provides a resolution for distance of 150 meters. They need to get the resolution for range to within the typical differential between wave tops and wave troughs, or the wave tops of the sea surface and the troughs will register the same reading. This is why Jason is obviously using a phase coherent method of measurement.
The pulse width in this case is actually greater than 100 micro seconds. This allows for sufficient illumination energy with only a handful of watts available on a satellite, because illumination energy is the pulse width multiplied by the transmitted power. The elapsed time measurement is actually made by comparing the phase of the return echo to the phase recorded by a device that is called the summer. This allows measurements from within the pulse to be made.
The accuracy of the distance measure is determined by how fine of a phase differential can be measured. Additionally, the bandwidth of the equipment will determine how sharp the transmitted pulse’s shape can be and therefore how finely it can be analyzed. 100% accuracy is only possible with infinite bandwidth, but as bandwidth increases so does the signal to noise ratio degrade. A trade off will need to be determined and yet more corrections employed. Accuracy to the 1/10 of a mm? I don’t think so.
KT66
The accuracy of the SL measurements is also influenced by the assumed height of the satellite. It can vary with the density of the atmosphere where the satellite is orbiting, which varies with the sunspot cycle. It could also be affected by water piling up under the influence of winds and increasing the gravitational attraction. Long-term shifts in the position and strength of mascons can also effect the orbital behavior of a satellite. A gravity model is used to estimate what the instantaneous height of the satellite is. But, in the middle of an ocean, there is no way to independently confirm that estimate. Thus, while the precision may be reasonably well known, the actual accuracy of the derived SL is much less less known and actually indeterminable.
Clyde Spencer
“A gravity model is used to estimate what the instantaneous height of the satellite is.”
Sure sure? Satellite laser ranging accuracy is below 1 mm, as is inbetween Lunar.
The JASON satellites use a combination of GPS, laser ranging and radio beacons (DORIS) to determine position. The claimed accuracy is about 2.5 cm, i e about 250 times the claimed precision of sea-level determination.
tty
The operative word here is “claimed.” I think that most of us here have come to be skeptical about any and all claims when it furthers the meme of CAGW.
Bindidon
Methinks you do not understand the problem. If you are doing laser ranging on a retroreflector, you get an absolute distance between the laser source and retroreflector. Easy problem! However, if you are trying to determine the (average) distance to a retroreflector on a pendulum moving in the plane of the laser beam, AND the laser is moving backwards and forwards independently, it becomes an insoluble problem unless you have an independent measure of the true position of the laser (satellite) so that you can subtract the motion of the laser.
Even GPS needs a fixed, independent receiver to get the high-precision, high-accuracy of what is called Differential GPS.
The whole ocean rising scam is their last line of defense promoting AGW after 20+ years of relatively stable land and sea temperature. The “we must act now” are cries of desperation because it’s obvious no one believes the warming narrative. The cries are getting louder, coming from more directions (Friday is childrens’ designated CC demonstration day now), and the propaganda increasing. Still CO2 in the atmosphere increases and we’re using more fossil fuels than ever. The UN sees their scam slipping away and after devoting so much time and energy (and our money) are worried. People are starting to question and that’s how this will all end. What they didn’t count on is the people’s unwillingness to lower their standard of living while others are allowed to increase theirs using the same logic.
The tide gauge data shows a constant rate of sea level rise, and the satellite data shows a different (higher) constant rate. The researchers concluded an increase in the rate of sea level rise by combining the two trends.
They trust the satellite data because it’s more technically advanced, and shows a higher rate. However, they still believe the tide gauge data for the period of prior to the sat data. Then for the period afterwards, suddenly that data is no longer trustworthy, for some unknown reason.
At some point, a clever engineer or scientist will figure out why the new method is returning errors, and the entire acceleration will go away.
That is why the “bathtub model” and global mean average should not be used … https://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2019/03/countries-with-sea-level-change-3.html … it obscures the current and future reality.
UN = “U No tell truth.” (i.e., liars and sophists)
Steve O
“The tide gauge data shows a constant rate of sea level rise…”
Where did you deduce this statement from?
I know of two tide gauge datasets:
– Church and White
– P(S)MSL
For 1880-2013, C&W data shows 1.8 mm/yr, and 3.6 for 1993-2013.
As the two authors communicated about their will to integrate altimetry data into their own series, everybody thinks of course that the C&W series didn’t start to raise before sat data came along.
This is a wrong assumption. I tried to make it visible by letting Office compute a sequence of 5-year distant linear estimates out of C&W’s data, all ending in 2013:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1n3gyDRgvK5kbYkA1SymZfSMW5Cpw0tc4/view
I hope you’ll agree that this has few in common with a ‘constant rise’, even long time before the sat period.
Actually, I’m doing some little layman work on PMSL in order to compare it with sat altimetry:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/165M66btxeC5apsmo-h3XNgCBB4S_rEGI/view
Both time series show the same linear estimate (3.2 mm/yr). That the PMSL estimate is below C&W’s for the sat period shouldn’t wonder: the one reflects layman’s simple-minded raw data processing, the latter huge experience with tide gauge data evaluation.
In the historical tide gauge record, are there decadal periods of accelerated/decelerated SLR? Might our focus on the period beginning 1993 warp our perceptions of SLR acceleration?
Dave Fair
“In the historical tide gauge record, are there decadal periods of accelerated/decelerated SLR?”
Didn’t you access the first link in the comment you replied to?
Many commenters are carelessly using the word “accuracy” when they should be using the word “precision.” One can have a very precise measurement that is actually very wrong, such as when there is a very large systematic error or bias that has not been identified. Alternatively, making ‘corrections’ that are wrong will result in a very inaccurate result, regardless of how many significant figures are shown. Related to these issues of accuracy are unstated assumptions such as knowing the altitude of the satellite with perfect accuracy and precision.
Clyde Spencer
I know: you tell us the same stuff since years.
BUT… you never managed to show us the exact difference between the two – especially when measurements like laser ranging are concerned, a technique now used since 40 years.
YOU are the one who should give us a scientific proof of this method showing a lack of accuracy… and not the inverse.
Bindidon
I suspect that there may be an issue of English being a second language for you. If my article,
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/12/are-claimed-global-record-temperatures-valid/
is not clear to you, I might suggest that you go to Wikipedia,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision
If the topic is available in your native language.
Accuracy and precision
https://www.google.com/search?q=accuracy+and+precision&client=firefox-b-d&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=WstXoHtlyUq-RM%253A%252C2FCb1UhLUm9YoM%252C%252Fm%252F0bjjd&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kTUip80CQyUFZLh7w0AEjPagIKh9w&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwizl5-E8ajhAhXjkOAKHXUCAY8Q_h0wHXoECAwQDA&biw=1407&bih=939#imgrc=WstXoHtlyUq-RM:
Jesus…
GregK
&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsimple.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FAccuracy_and_precision&docid=GtkhhTSTYA1uwM&tbnid=v9fnWW6dAjM1IM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwiRz4KmwqrhAhVCKKwKHfxmDx0QMwiwASg8MDw..i&w=1200&h=646&client=firefox-b-d&bih=912&biw=1336&q=accuracy%20and%20precision&ved=0ahUKEwiRz4KmwqrhAhVCKKwKHfxmDx0QMwiwASg8MDw&iact=mrc&uact=8
Targets make for a good visual example, and I have used the analogy myself. However, for things like temperature and SL, illustrations using a probability distribution along a line, such as the following, are better:
As with climate vs. weather, the only useful information re sea level is the tide gauges. Both weather and tide can be measured with sufficient accuracy to predict the local conditions for the near future. The longer we measure them the more accurate are our predictions. However, there is a time limit, beyond which we can only speculate. Even the IPCC admits this by referring to projections rather than of predictions.
Global climate and global sea level are different. Even after spending billions of dollars studying both (I can’t call it ‘research’), the only thing we have learned is that both systems are just too complex to model in the foreseeable future. My guess is that the gravy train is just too enticing to admit it.
Joe Crawford
“…the only useful information re sea level is the tide gauges.”
You are right. The altimetry period is a bit short in comparison.
But… by how much, do you think, do the two differ within their common lifetime?
so…. .145 inches.
oooohh scawy….
Hey MODS the last five (5) days I have received the old ” CAN’T DISPLAY THE PAGE” message, every time I try to access WUWT. Use DuckDuckGo
Hey now in a window I get the message “WEBSITE APPEARS NOT TO BE VALID”. I hit the Fix Connection Button and got on to leave this additional message. You should have a word with Word Press and have them talk to Microsoft.
I better rush to re-hem my flood pants or resole my shoes to be ready for the rising waters.
Here is Brooklyn, NY gauge. I know of no subsidence or up lift for this location and it’s current
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8518750
Oops should have said the Battery tip of Manhattan
MIKE MCHENRY
The Battery
Trend 1895-2018: 3.0 mm/yr.
Trend 1979-2018: 4.3 mm/yr.
Imagine just one moment you would live here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-2OcxjLuDVElTtnRn1ORIUp1Fvuc_tGa/view
What would you think about sea level ‘rise’?
What was the 1925 to 1945 trend in SLR, Bindidon?
Dave Fair
“What was the 1925 to 1945 trend in SLR?”
According to C&W:
1.7 mm/yr.
P.S. Somewhere upthread you were thinking of some possible cyclic behavior within SL data.
Here is a detrended variant of C&W:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/14StX8gooDpkKZa4OLnmldeTBN5rayTu7/view
If there was such a behavior, for sure we would see it right here.
Quebec probably experiencing glacier rebound
NOAA Technical Report NOS CO-OPS 065 report “Estimating Verical Land Motion from Long-Term Tide Gauge Records” of May, 2013 says The Battery Gauge (8518750) subsidence rate based on 151 years of data (to 2006) is 1.22 mm/yr. They also calculated subsidence/vertical uplift for about another 120 U.S. stations. Check it out.
I would suggest that the author Mr. Eric Worrall of this article check empirical data collected at tide stations with instruments in the ocean not radar data from a satellite orbiting the Earth. See “tidesandcurents.noaa.gov” Check San Francisco, California Tide station 9414290 mean sea level data from 1897 to 2018 presents sea a level trend of 1.96 mm/year which is equivalent to a change of .64 feet in 100 years.
3.7mm is a hair more than 1/8 of an inch. Seriously?
Get a grip UN. I expect not even the biggest twit at the UN could figure out how to drown in a 1/8 of an inch of sea water.
If you stood your entire live at the edge of the ocean, and were too stupid to get out of the way, you’d die of old age before the water reached you knees.
Quite honestly, any human being that can’t cope with such a small annual change will be eliminated from the evolutionary chain long before sea level change gets to them. They will be carried off by a hord of locust or a plague of frogs.
Assuming that the U.N. has got it right and that its asserted rate of sea level rise represents a real danger, why is no-one — even here — concerned with the problem of extracting the anthropogenic contribution from the natural one?
To the extent that the rise is natural, it would seem appropriate to take adaptation measures while humanity reforms its behaviour to address its part of the problem.
Has ANYONE managed to determine a believable apportionment of natural and anthropogenic forcings?
In the absence of such an apportionment, why must we be so committed to the sackcloth-and-ashes approach?