Reposted from NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT!
JUNE 14, 2021
By Paul Homewood
The rate of sea-level rise in the 20th century along much of the U.S. Atlantic coast was the fastest in 2,000 years, and southern New Jersey had the fastest rates, according to a Rutgers-led study.
The global rise in sea level from melting ice and warming oceans from 1900 to 2000 led to a rate that’s more than twice the average for the years 0 to 1800 – the most significant change, according to the
study in the journal Nature Communications.
The study, for the first time, looked at the phenomena that contributed to sea-level change over 2,000 years at six sites along the coast (in Connecticut, New York City, New Jersey and North Carolina) using a sea-level budget. A budget enhances understanding of the processes driving sea-level change. The processes are global, regional (including geological, such as land subsidence) and local, such as groundwater withdrawal.
“Having a thorough understanding of sea-level change at sites over the long term is imperative for regional and local planning and responding to future sea-level rise,” said lead author
Jennifer S. Walker, a postdoctoral associate in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences in the School of Arts and Sciences at Rutgers University–New Brunswick. “By learning how different processes vary over time and contribute to sea-level change, we can more accurately estimate future contributions at specific sites.”
Sea-level rise stemming from climate change threatens to permanently inundate low-lying islands, cities and lands. It also heightens their vulnerability to flooding and damage from coastal and other storms.
Most sea-level budget studies are global and limited to the 20th and 21st centuries. Rutgers-led researchers estimated sea-level budgets for longer time frames over 2,000 years. The goal was to better understand how the processes driving sea level have changed and could shape future change, and this sea-level budget method could be applied to other sites around the world.
Using a statistical model, scientists developed sea-level budgets for six sites, dividing sea-level records into global, regional and local components. They found that regional land subsidence – sinking of the land since the Laurentide ice sheet retreated thousands of years ago – dominates each site’s budget over the last 2,000 years. Other regional factors, such as ocean dynamics, and site-specific local processes, such as groundwater withdrawal that helps cause land to sink, contribute much less to each budget and vary over time and by location.
As the actual data shows, the rate of sea level rise in New Jersey has been pretty constant since 1910, which suggests that carbon dioxide emissions have little overall effect. What we are seeing is the result of natural global warming since the Little Ice Age ended:
https://www.tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8534720
The study claims that 20thC sea level rise is double that of the years 0 to 1800. But their modelling does not take account of changing century or decadal trends within the period. We know for a fact that glaciers advanced massively between the 17th and 19thC. There therefore had to have been a significant reduction in sea level rise at that time, maybe even a fall in sea levels as HH lamb believed.
Lamb also believed that glaciers were almost as great as the LIA in the previous cold epoch, around AD 450 to 850. There will therefore have been fluctuations in the long term trend, with sea levels rising faster at times, and slower at others.
What we do know is that many of the world’s glaciers are bigger now than they were in the Middle Ages and before.
As with all climate studies, the object is to prove climate change is “getting worse than ever”. Hence talk of accelerating sea level rise. The intention is to make people fearful of something which is too tiny to concern them.
NOAA kindly provide this chart, comparing actual sea level rise with official projections:
https://www.tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8534720
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The Atlantic City tide gauge is equipped with a GPS elevation gauge which shows the area is sinking at a rate of 1.74 mm/year since 2009 when it was installed. Most likely the area has been sinking at this or a similar rate for decades or even centuries. This means that true sea level at the City is rising at a rate of about 2.6 mm/yr, not 4.1 mm/yr. The same is true of The Battery tide gauge in NYC which shows about half of the observed sea level rise is due to sinking land. Discussing just the tide gauge sea level change is misleading where GPS data is available.
As soon as I read “Using a statistical model”, I stopped reading. Model? Geesh!
I can’t wait for the seas to get to the bottom of my hill. I will be able to go swimming in the gulf without the long trip down to Galveston. Only…574 feet more sea level rise to go…
I’m only a hundred and four feet above East Coast sea level. The hill I’m on is 60-80 feet high.
Except, previous sea levels have stopped at the Fall Line along Virginia’s piedmont.
I doubt Earth can get warmer now than it was before the recent ice ages started.
Which puts the lie to alarmist claims of massive sea level rise. Supposed 10ft SLR increases are easily stopped by dikes.
Coastal sand barrier islands? They were always known to be temporary moving piles of sand.
For the last couple of years, the Great Lakes have been at high levels. We had local idiots blaming sea level rise even though Chicago and Detroit are at around 600 feet above sea level.
There are a lot of websites displaying world’s sea level gauges datas that are available to the people to make themselves their opinion about the sea level rise. And also, sad for the IPCC, about the global warming.
I could read yesterday an article about the Copenhagen’s city project to build an artificial island with the purported aim to “protect” Copenhagen against the SL rise. https://www.lefigaro.fr/international/a-copenhague-l-ile-artificielle-de-la-discorde-20210614
Then I immediately went on the sonel.org sea level gauge of Copenhagen to find that the sea level rate in this place is 0.6 mm per year.
Conclusion: Copenhagen has no need to be “protected” against the SLR and this ruinous project, completely useless has certainly other less avowable aims.
Atlantic City’s data shows the sea level rise has been flat for 20 years, in spite of the coal burning party in Asia… I guess data is not an impediment to the new scientists, who are more political scientists than anything else.
t=0 is year 2000.
y-axis is sea level in millimeters.
The red line is a 2 yr average.
Pink is an easy to see best fit line.
Cuhaven is the single best instrument for measuring the climate over the past 150 years, in my opinion.
And it shows nothing.
Hoek van Holland showing 150 years of the same.
Here, the slope given for the linear curve-fit is stated to be 2.4 mm/year.
A significant change and 14% higher than the Cuxhaven indicated SLR rate.
Mr. Lee,
Uhhh, the slope given for the linear curve-fit is stated to be 2.1 mm/year.
That is far from “nothing” as true SLR rates are concerned.
They’ve been doing the same thing for 150 years. This means that CO2 has noting to do with it. Do try to keep up.
Mr. Lee,
Hmmmm . . . if the two tide gages that you referred to have actually been “doing the same thing for 150 years” as you assert, that must mean that the global atmospheric cooling trend averaged over the period of 1940-1975 (yes, 35 continuous years) did not cause any thermal contraction of ocean waters. That is, global atmospheric cooling did not, in turn, lead to cooling the world’s oceans and thus did not increase salt water density and thus there was not any perturbation in the SLR trend line over this specific time interval).
Sorry, but I indeed can’t stay even—let alone, “keep up with”— such bizarre “science”.
Are you saying the data is wrong because it doesn’t fit your “science”?
Accelerating sea level rise is to make people fearful of something which is too tiny to concern them. And it works. Carmakers like Volvo is dedicated to reversing that trend.
Well, it is a Chinese auto company.
According to their “statistical model”, land subsidence increased sea level rise?
And their “model” shows that land subsidence dominates each site’s sea level rise for the last 2,000 year?
That’s some circle self-satisfaction models they program.
Maybe they should wake up and do some genuine field research.
The NOAA graph tells you everything you need to know about sea-level rise.
Since 2000 only 2 predictions have come close to reality – “intermediate low” and “low”.
Anyone with even a brain the size of an amoeba can see there is no need to be fussed about sea level rise – the oceans are just doing what they’ve always done.
The la nina effect moved 1 trillion tonnes of water from West Coast Western Australia to East Coast of Africa
I worked this out as about 10mm in a season
Interestingly if sea level rises in one area it should be the southern hemisphere
The artic ice is floating on the ocean and due to basic hydraulics has already been countered for as ice or water
I think our climate scientists need a physics/engineering degree before they are taken seriously and not an ecomomics humanity degree
But as they say money is the driver not truth
Use this form of graph:
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8518750
It shows change in paste.
No connection with CO2
“Sea-level rise stemming from climate change threatens to permanently inundate low-lying islands”
Barrier islands migrate laterally in sync with sea level, and coral reefs grow together with sea level (Darwin). So plain alarmism.
I live in Alberta, Canada, and the Rocky Mountains are between the Pacific Ocean and me. So, I ain’t worried, boys.
Is it the ripple effect brought by greenhouse gases? My focus will still be car industry that is the key factor, I believe, in turning the table. Some products like nissan teana should be levied more taxes!
has anyone ever gone developed a sea level back into the Little Ice Age and plotted it out to current?
Ice melting? Greenland has lost 5*10¹² m³ (5,000 Gigaton) ice in 40 years, Antarctic ice was more or less stable, everything is negligible. The total seawater area is 361 km² = 361*10¹² m². Therefore, ice melting contributed 5/361 = 1.4 cm in sea level rise. In 40 years! Or 0.35 mm/year.
I live near the coast of North Carolina My ground elevation is about 23′ above sea level; my question is when can I expect to have oceanfront property?
It is very simple, really: It is all bullshit, all the time, from the climate mafia.
Just keep that in mind, and refer to it whenever they say anything.
Look at the pretty rainbow of lines rising to the sky. So much more fun than that dreary black squiggle hugging the baseline. Don’t we all want a future full of rainbows? Let’s not ruin the fun by insisting on only one paltry set of truths. Why can’t science be more like science fiction?
Still waiting to see something unusual and dramatic. Right or wrong it does not hurt to look. Unless it influences laws and regulations.
Since sea levels have been recorded for hundreds of years, and the fact that ocean water expands and contracts with temperature, like a thermometer, it is an excellent indicator of the earth surface temperature.
Since CO2 is supposedly the main culprit of climate change, comparing atmospheric CO2 and sea level one can test the so called human caused climate change theory. The graph below was from data supplied by the Scripps Institute (CO2 levels). and sea level data from PSMSL based in Liverpol UK ( http://www.psmsl.org/ ) or NOAA ( http://www.sealevel.info/data.psp ). The following is a graph of global sea leve (Holegate9 model) comparing sea level rise with CO2 level since 1910. It illustrates that sea level rise rise, has not increased, or accelerated in spite of the sudden increase in CO2 since the 1950’s. According to climate change theory, sea levels should be accelerating, however no significant change in sea level rise is noted. Hence that comment relating to humans having any significant effect on climate has yet to be proven.
**
https://www.dropbox.com/s/r2kkickd9s71kq9/Holgate9_Vs_CO2.jp g?dl=0
*
If one draws a straight line through the Atlantic City, NJ sea level rise data from 1960 through 2020, and extends it through the year 2100, the extrapolated sea level rise is about 0.45 meter since 2000, or 4.5 mm per year, which is even lower than the dark blue “Low” prediction line.
Why are alarmists so convinced that sea level rise will accelerate in the future, if it hasn’t accelerated over the past 60 years?
Isaac Newton discovered over 300 years ago that every acceleration requires an unbalanced force. What force will be acting over the next 80 years to accelerate sea level rise, which hasn’t been acting over the past 60 years?
It’s sad when these “scientists’ can’t even pass a science test to pass from 4th grade to 5th grade. What are the 4 things a green plant needs to grow? 1, nutrients form the ground, 2, water, 3,sunlight, and 4, CO2 from the air. Without CO2 in sufficient amounts, NO plants, No food supply, NO humans or animals.
We are currently around 400 parts per million of CO2. If we drop to 180ppm, plants start to die, and we ALL die at 150ppm!
We contribute about 3.5% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. The rest is totally out of our control.
Increased CO2 has contributed to the “greening” of 700,000 square kilometers of the Sahara Dessert since we have satellites to measure it.
More CO2, more plants, more food for people. ONLY FOOLS don’t know these basics.