By P Gosselin
No accelerating sea level rise”… “no correlation between CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and sea level rise”.
First appearing at CFACT.
We have been studying climate change and potentially associated sea level changes resulting from melting ice and warming oceans for a half century. In the 1970s our primary concern was global cooling and an advancing new ice age. Many believe that increasing quantities of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere could result in rising levels of the sea in general. The record does not show this to be true. There is no evidence whatever to support impending sea-level-rise catastrophe or the unnecessary expenditure of state or federal tax monies to solve a problem that does not exist.
The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has updated its coastal sea level tide gauge data which continue to show no evidence of accelerating sea level rise. These measurements include tide gauge data at coastal locations along the West Coast, East Coast, Gulf Coast, Pacific Ocean, Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico, as well as seven Pacific Island groups and six Atlantic Island groups, comprising more than 200 measurement stations.
The longest NOAA tide gauge record on coastal sea level rise measurements is in New York at the Battery, with its 160-year record which is shown below with a steady rate of sea level rise of 11 inches per century. A slightly slower rate of sea level rise occurs at nearby Kings Point, New York, whose 80-year record also appears below.
Tidal gauges at the Battery and Kings Point show sea level rising at a pace of 11 inches per century. Both locations show a steady pace of increase, with the same pace of increase holding steady despite periods of relatively rapid temperatures increase and periods of cooling. The Battery measurements date back to 1855, showing the same pace of sea level rise well before the existence of coal power plants and SUVs.
NOAA data provide assessments with a 95% confidence level at all measured locations which demonstrate the consistent behavior of location-specific sea level rise over time. The 2016 updated NOAA tide gauge data include four long-term periods between 92 and 119 years for California coastal locations at San Diego, La Jolla, Los Angeles and San Francisco. The actual measured steady rates of sea level rise at these locations vary between four inches and nine inches per century.
In contrast to the steady but modest rise in sea level, revealed in long-term measurements, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) speculates that sea level will almost immediately begin rising significantly more than in the past and present. NOAA records contradict such claims. This pattern of steady but modest sea level rise extends throughout the world, throughout times of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, and throughout periods of accelerated warming and cooling.
The IPCC and global warming activists have a difficult time scientifically supporting speculation about accelerating sea level rise, as warming temperatures have yet to push sea level rise beyond one foot per century. Current sea level trends are not significantly different from what they were seven to nine decades ago, when atmospheric CO2 levels were 310 parts per million by volume (ppmv) or less.[1] Dire predictions made decades ago of dramatically accelerating polar ice loss, and an ice-free Arctic Ocean have not come to pass.[2] As Dr. Steven E. Koonin, former Undersecretary for Science for the Obama administration, noted in 2014, “Even though the human influence on climate was much smaller in the past, the models do not account for the fact that the rate of global sea-level rise 70 years ago was as large as what we observe today.”[3]
Fortunately, we don’t need to wonder who is right and who is wrong in the debate over future sea-level rise. We can test the rising-seas hypothesis with real data collected from 10 coastal cities with long and reliable sea level records. Those cities are Ceuta, Spain; Honolulu, Hawaii; Atlantic City, New Jersey; Sitka, Alaska; Port Isabel, Texas; St. Petersburg, Florida; Fernandina Beach, Florida; Mumbai/Bombay, India; Sydney, Australia; and Slipshavn, Denmark.
We can test the rising-sea hypothesis with real data collected from ten coastal cities with long and reliable sea-level records.
The cities appear on the map below along with the data for each city presented on separate graphs below. The graphs include the following elements:
- CO2 concentrations measured in the atmosphere over the past century, signified by the green lines in the graphs. (This line is the same in all the graphs.)
- Monthly mean sea-level data for each city, signified by the blue lines, and
- The “linear fit,” signified by the red line, representing the best estimate of past and future average sea levels. We also include the 95% Prediction Intervals.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_map, modified.
Example 1: Ceuta, Spain – Mediterranean Sea
The Ceuta, Spain data show about as flat a trend as we can observe. Most notably, the data show no correlation between CO2 concentration and sea-level rise. If the current trend continues for the next century, sea level in Ceuta will rise only three inches. This is in sharp contrast to the 10-foot global rise in sea levels recently projected by former NASA scientist James Hansen.[5]
Example 2: Honolulu, Hawaii – Pacific Ocean
Hawaii, like some other regions, can see significant year-to-year fluctuations in sea level because of global oceanic currents or local plate tectonic movements. However, Honolulu has seen an average sea-level rise of only 5.6 inches since 1900. The sea level around Honolulu is projected to rise a mere 5.6 inches in the next 100 years, once again with no correlation to CO2 levels.
Example 3: Atlantic City, New Jersey – Atlantic Ocean
Atlantic City represents one of the more significant upward trends. The average sea level there has risen about 16 inches in the past 100 years. Notice, however, the spike at 1998, when the El Niño event took place in the Pacific Ocean, and then the subsequent drop in sea level that persisted for the next five years. Obviously, factors other than CO2 levels were responsible for both the spike and the drop.
Example 4: Sitka, Alaska – Northern Pacific Ocean
The sea level trend in Sitka, Alaska has been downward, not upward. If the rate of change continues, sea level will fall nine inches over the next 100 years. Note Sitka is only about 100 miles from Glacier Bay and 200 miles from the Hubbard Glacier on Disenchantment Bay. If melting glaciers were causing sea levels to rise, one might expect to see it in Alaska.
Example 5: Port Isabel, Texas – Western Gulf of Mexico
Port Isabel, Texas shows an upwardly inclined sea level trend, although the record reaches only as far back as 1944. If the current trend continues, sea level will rise 15.4 inches over the next 100 years.
Example 6: St. Petersburg, Florida – Eastern Gulf of Mexico
At St. Petersburg, on the other side of the Gulf of Mexico from Port Isabel, Texas, sea level is also rising but more slowly. Once again, the record is shorter than other sites, dating back only to 1947. Here, the projected sea-level rise is only 10.7 inches over the next 100 years.
Example 7: Fernandina Beach, Florida – Atlantic Ocean
On the opposite side of Florida from St. Petersburg, the Fernandina Beach sea level rise is projected at only 8.3 inches over the next 100 years. Miami Beach officials have been formulating policies to combat a rising ocean, even though the data for that area are spotty and incomplete. The real problem might well be land subsidence, which is unrelated to CO2 concentrations. Miami officials would do better to consider the possible impact of heavy infrastructure concentrated along the coastline, built upon former swampland.[6]
Example 8: Mumbai/Bombay, India – Indian Ocean
Reliable sea level records at Mumbai/Bombay, India, stretch back to the 1870s. The slight upward trend in Mumbai/Bombay means if current trends continue, sea level there will rise a mere 3.12 inches in the next 100 years. If melting Himalayan glaciers were causing sea level to rise, one might expect to see that reflected in the tidal gauges of Mumbai/Bombay.[7]
Example 9: Sydney, Australia – Pacific Ocean
Australia has taken drastic measures to mitigate perceived CO2 issues, and the people of that country have suffered significant electricity blackouts in the past year. The shift from reliable coal-fired power plants to unreliable renewable energy has raised electricity rates in Australia to among the highest in the world.[8] Estimated sea-level rise over the next 100 years: 2.76 inches.
Example 10: Slipshavn, Denmark – North Sea
Slipshavn is unique in that it is situated in what is believed to be one of the most geologically/ tectonically inert regions on Earth. Unlike regions such as Alaska, where many land areas are rising, or the Gulf of Mexico, where some areas are subsiding, Slipshavn is tectonically very stable. If sea-level trends over the past 100 years remain constant, and on the basis of the data above, there is no reason to expect anything different in the near future. Sea level at Slipshavn should rise by a mere 3.6 inches over the next 100 years.
Analysis
The data and projected trends for these ten well-documented coastal cities point to three conclusions:
- There has been no dramatic sea level rise in the past century, and projections show no dramatic rise is likely to occur in the coming century.
- There is no evidence to indicate the rate of sea level rise or fall in any of the areas of this study will be substantially different than has been the case over the past many decades.
- There is no correlation between CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and sea level rise. The steady but modest rise in sea level predated coal power plants and SUVs, and has continued at its same pace even as atmospheric CO2 concentrations rose from 280 parts per million to 420 parts per million today .[9]
Survey from three sources:
1958–present data are from measurements at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, at 3,400 meters altitude in the Northern subtropics.[10]
1850–1958 data are from ice core data.[11]
1800–1850 CO2 data are from a different ice core data set.[12]
Sea-level measurements for the ten coastal city graphs represent monthly data points compiled from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL), based in Britain. The database from which the graphs are drawn consists of data from 375 long-record tide-gauges around the globe, selected by NOAA for trend analysis.[13]
Sea levels vary widely across the globe. Values for the initial levels in the graphs refer to Mean Sea Level (MSL) data, established by the NOAA Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services (NOAA-CO-OPS).
REFERENCES:
[1] Patrick J. Michaels, “2016 Record Warm Surface Temperatures: The Party’s Over!” Cato at Liberty, August 10, 2017.
[2] Douglas Stanglin, “Gore: Polar Ice Cap May Disappear By Summer 2014,” USA Today, December 14, 2009.
[3] Steven E. Koonin, “Climate Science Is Not Settled,” The Wall Street Journal, September 19, 2014.
[5] Brian Clark Howard, “Prediction of Rapid Sea Level Rise Won’t Change Global Climate Talks,” National Geographic, July 21, 2015.
[6] Simone Fiaschi and Shimon Wdowinski, “The Contribution of Land Subsidence to the Increasing Coastal Flooding Hazard in Miami Beach,” Miami, FL: Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, no date.
[7] James Lamont, “Himalayan Glaciers Melting Fast, Says Nepal,” Financial Times, September 1, 2009.
[8] Ian Plimer, The Climate Change Delusion and the Great Electricity Ripoff (Redland Bay, Queensland: Connor Court Publishing, 2017).
[9] Nils-Axel Mörner, “Sea Level Manipulation,” International Journal of Engineering Science Invention 6 (August 2017): 48–51. ISSN (Online): 2319 – 6734, ISSN (Print): 2319 – 6726; Albert Parker and Clifford D. Ollier, “California Sea Level Rise: Evidence Based Forecasts vs. Model Predictions,” Ocean & Coastal Management, July 2017.
[10] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Earth System Research Laboratory Global Monitoring Division, data set from ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_annmean_mlo.txt and ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt .
[11] Data compiled by the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
[12] Law Dome Atmospheric CO2 Data, World Data Center for Paleoclimatology, and NOAA Paleoclimatology Program.
[13] Sources: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level, compiled at www.Sealevel.info.
The only thing that appears to be increasing in lock step with CO2, WRT Sea Level Rise is CC Rhetoric and Fear Mining by the political left
To paraphrase ‘the only purpose and the achievement of all predicted climate change disasters is to make astrology respectable’
These 65 tide gauges from the Permanent Service for Sea Level
(PSMSL):
SanFrancisco, Fernandia, Honolulu, New York, Key West, Fremantle,
Sydney, Brest, Seattle, Helsinki, Baltimore, Balboa, Boston,
Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Pensacola, Sewells Pt, Galveston,
Stockholm, Portland ME, Marseille, Oslo, San Diego, Ketchikan,
Victoria, Trieste, Charelston I, Astoria, Newlyn, Trois-Rivieres,
Poti, Slipshavn, Frederikshavn, Hirtshals, Aarhus, Travemunde,
Turku/abo, Korsor, Pietarsaari/Jakobstad, Kobenhavn, Mantyluoto,
Hornbaek, Gedser, Frederica, Esbjerg, W Terschelling, Tuapse,
Furuogrund, Visby, Ratan, Warnemunde 2, Wismar 2, Cuxhaven 2,
Smogen, Kungsholmsfort, Olands Norra Udde, Ijmuiden, Harlingen,
Delfzijl, Den Helder, Hoek Van Holland, Vlissingen, Maassluis,
Galveston and La Jolla
when analysed for acceleration in mm/yr², a very tight distribution
centered between 0.00 and 0.01 mm/yr² is produced as follows:
-.07>–1
-.06
-.05
-.04
-.03
-.02
-.01>–2
0.00>-30
0.01>-26
0.02>–5
0.03>–1
Any rational person would say that’s no acceleration.
The -.07 mm/yr² outlier is Trois-Rivieres on the St Lawrence in Canada.
Good addition, Steve. The outlier in Canada is probably related to isostatic glacial melt removal, whereas the Sitka, Alaska anomaly cited in the report is probably due to tipping of the North American Plate, west side up (east side of the plate down). It is amazing to me how steady the sea level rise is, considering the many factors affecting it, but the biggie is world-wide temperature (as long as there is a continental mass in a polar location).
With a hat tip to Hank Johnson (D-GA), is the Sitka anomaly because so many people live on the east side of the North American continent? (Hehe)
thanks Steve. This is exactly what I was just saying was needed in my criticism of this article. PROOF that there is no acceleration rather than asserting it . Nice one.
Steve:
The data you used for this calculation is from what range of dates?
Thanks.
I picked stations from the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level that have pretty good data back to 1917 when I put that together in 2017. I used the entire data set for each for example Brest France goes back to 1807 so I used a range of 210 years. The short range of data back to 1992 from the satellites has too much noise and Dr. Nerem who runs Colorado University’s Sea Level Research Group has so grossly rewritten that short history of data that it is simply not to be believed.
Sorry that I didn’t see this comment before my earlier post. But in light of the fact that your very first station, San Francisco, has a big datum shift, the choices must either have been curated, or you started all of the valuations in 1917 and didn’t mention it in your first post. Please expand…
Steve, upon rereading your post, I believe that I see what you did. With the possible differing interpretation of “pretty good data back to 1917”, it is replicable. If I did it, I would use stations that had both current and 1917 data, but then use all of the data.
Thx again…
Were these picked randomly? Was there any culling or high grading due to data insufficiency or some other criteria?
Neither questions are gotcha’s. I commend you on the time that I know you invested. But I would be interested in:
The same stations, with 1980 on data only. As that would better capture the influence of accumulated modern forcings.A collection of stations – same culling, if any – that I picked, from my randomization.
Again, you (commendably) spent time here, and I’ve a life. So, I might not “trust, but verify”. But my 2 first para questions are not rhetorical.
See my post above. By the way the calculation was done a few different ways. Microsoft’s Excel Spreadsheet gives you the formula ax²+bx+c where 2x² is the acceleration. Dave Burtons Sea Level Info also has a nice acceleration value for each tide gauge that I used. Then you can use the formula (v2-v1)/t=a that you learned in your 12th grade physics class. I also did some graphic stuff as a further check. The agreement was pretty good, at least 2 places all around.
See the questions that I just posted. And yes, I evaluate acceleration the same way as you, using the free excel equivalent, opencalc. But I use linest, with the data as my y values, and date and date^2 as x values. Acceleration is then twice the value in the first array column. As in
Displacement = ax^2+bx +c
Velocity = 2ax+b
Acceleration = 2a
I’m sure that using your “graphic stuff”, with the same data, gives you excellent agreement.
Thx for getting back to me.
By the way, if you use a PC, press and hold the [Alt]key then type in 0178 to get the exponent²
The amount of money being wasted on defences against “accelerating” and “catastrophic” future sea level rise is phenomenal!
Yes, yes, but just consider how many of the rich are becoming super-rich!
Thanks to those whose purpose is to redistribute wealth. Robin and the G7 hoods forgot about the poor part
but that may not last – Siemens, the largest manufacturer of offshore wind turbines reported a $1 billion loss in Q4 without a single order – and noted that more massive subsidies are needed – from governments that are already broke – the subsidies have to end
And yet the frequency of use of the Thames barrier has increased with time, doubtless that has saved a lot of money!
Phil., the barrier was built to protect parts of London from high storm surge at high tide.
Absolutely nothing to due with “sea level rise”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Barrier
I suggest you read the article you linked to. Note that I referred to the frequency of use, don’t you think sea level rise would affect that (your article appears to think so).
Please note that London and the Thames Valley are gradually sinking as the UK tilts as a consequence of the removal of the last ice sheet. The barrier will have to be raised in the future…but nothing to do with climate change. Just Father Earth rearranging himself as he always has. We just need to get out of the way sometimes.
Thanks Phil, I’d never heard of it.
“The barrier protects central London against a storm surge, caused when a deep depression forms to the north of Scotland” All of Northern Scotland ought to be considered deeply depressed given typical cold, windy weather in the Hebrides.
Without lies they have nothing to discuss
Bugger! Here is me in my old age thinking I would not have to walk so far to the beach for a swim.
You just gotta live another 10,000 years
That should read ‘increasing quantities of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere could result in an increase in the rate of sea level rise in general’.
Most of the accompanying graphs, apart from sites where post-glacial rebound or local land movement is occurring, indicate relatively linear sea level rise in accord with a more or less linear rise in the average global surface temperature over the past century whatever the causes.
Plotting sea level trends against the CO2 trend is a bit of a stretch, after all despite alarmists claims no-one knows the effect of the rising CO2 concentration on the atmospheric temperature except theoretically that effect diminishes logarithmically.
Because of that well established physical property of CO2 all that can be said is the global climate is slightly different now to what it would have been had the concentration remained ~300 ppm.
Chris,
Quote
“Because of that well established physical property of CO2 all that can be said is the global climate is slightly different now to what it would have been had the concentration remained ~300 ppm.”
The only thing we actually know is CO2 has increased. We have no way of knowing if that increase has affected the climate.
How could we determine if a change in one minor atmospheric gas molecule, i.e. from 0.03% concentration to 0.04% has changed climate?
Over the same time period, as the CO2 increase has taken place, the world’s population has grown from 2 billion to 8 billion. Maybe the changes to the planet, that population uplift has brought, is more impacting on climate than a nominated gas molecule?
Maybe the cyclical nature of climate change is overriding all current human induced change? How would we know? Study suggests that climate change has always been the case, nothing has happened to alter the worlds variability of climate.
Ice ages come and their passing tell a story of massive climate change being the normal state of planet Earth.
We as Johnny come lately inputs, can imagine all we like, we can slosh the water about in the bucket of climate as much as we like, in reality or in our imagination. The facts show, when we cease to slosh about the world will continue on its way, forgetting we ever existed.
The planet is not ‘finished’, it is very much still under construction. Whole continents not only drift, but tilt and flex too. New sea floor is constantly being created, and old is being subducted. It is as tectonically active as it has ever been. Stresses build up, and catastrophic releases sometimes result in the type of tragedy that happened in Turkey just a few days ago. A similar event happened off the coast of Japan in 2011 and had effects globally:
https://www.livescience.com/39110-japan-2011-earthquake-tsunami-facts.html
There is more to sea level than is reported in the guardian.
Yes, ‘under construction’ indeed. It is a construction site that will never be finished and Father Earth cares not one iota about us and our rubbish (ie. cities, roads, bridges and ports). They will all get remade in his timeframe…we are just along for the somewhat bumpy ride. We need to plan accordingly and build our stuff as far from potential trouble spots as possible or design them for the worst.
No, we can’t say the increase in CO2 has had an effect on the Earth’s temperature. Climate feedbacks are negative, and there’s no empirical evidence anywhere in the climate record that says CO2 drives temperature.
And there’s plenty of empirical evidence that the Earth’s temperature is indifferent to atmospheric CO2 levels.
You must always remember that the notion that atmospheric CO2 levels impact the Earth’s temperature includes the foundational assumption “all other things held equal.”
“No, we can’t say the increase in CO2 has had an effect on the Earth’s temperature. Climate feedbacks are negative, and there’s no empirical evidence anywhere in the climate record that says CO2 drives temperature.”
“Yes we can say every CO2 increase has had an effect on the average temperature, based on lab experiments — spectroscopy with artificially dried air and with water vapor too.
Since CO2 is already a weak greenhouse gas above 400ppm. its actual effect on the atmosphere is too small to be separated from the effects of other natural and manmade causes of climate change.
It is counterproductive to claim that CO2 does nothing if you are trying to refute CAGW, as I have been trying to do for 25 years.
Why not just say that more CO2 impedes the earth’s ability to cool itself by a small, harmless amount. Better yet, say that more CO2 in the atmosphere is beneficial,
Any warming of the troposphere causes a positive feedback of more water vapor, More water vapor in the troposphere seems to cause a negative feedback of more clouds, that block more incoming sunlight. It all seems to work well naturally, in spite of the Climate Howler Global Whining.
Apart from the poor choice of title, should be ‘rate of rise of sea level is stable’, most of their graphs do show a link between rising CO2 and sea level, if they’d plotted ‘log CO2’ vs sea level they’d probably get an excellent correlation! Also in the one set of data where sea level is decreasing (Sitka) they fail to note that the land there is rising at about 3.7 mm/yr due to isostatic rebound.
The rate of sea level rise hasn’t changed since the end of the Little Ice Age. For over 100 of those years, there was no CO2 rise, but the seas still rose.
Very good point that needs to be shouted from the rooftops.
This analysis should be copied to every major news outlet, every day for the next year by everyone on this forum. “Flood the zone” with truth!
There is little point in flooding the news desks, they will ignore it ‘cos it doesn’t fit the CAGW hypothesis.
I’ve tried it with other WUWT papers and no newspaper will touch them.
The Brits have a famous site at Newlyn with over 100 years of seven inches a century
To be fair much of the world is still recovering from the ice age and isostatic rebound or whatever its called. And tectonic activity hasn’t stopped either. Mountains are still rising.
Mt. Everest is rising 4 mm/year- faster than the sea. Perhaps we should be horrified of that- it might cause landslides, earthquakes, and CLIMATE CHANGE! /sarc
All caused by climate change, of course, and worse than we thought, and will end life on Earth as we know it in 49.75 years if we don’t build more windmills and solar panels, or so I’ve heard.
We are still in an ice age, actually.
See Wikipedia for the difference between a Greenhouse Earth and an Icehouse Earth:
Greenhouse and icehouse Earth – Wikipedia
We are in an interglacial warm period. And we are overdue already compared to previous interglacial periods. Everything goes in cycles and not in stright lines as the alarmists think.
“as the alarmists BELIEVE”
I see no evidence to support the supposition that the ever engage in thinking.
A trip to the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level PSMSL
shows Newlyn to have a nearly complete record 1916 to 2019.
Acceleration at Newlyn is an essentially nonexistent 0.008 mm/yr².
Colorado University’s Sea Level Group says acceleration is
0.084mm/yr² LINK. In 2011 they said it was negative see page
25 of Dr. Steve Nerem’s power point presentation with the catchy
title:
Why has an acceleration of sea level rise
not been observed during the altimeter era?
Somehow Dr. Nerem and his sea level research group found that
the acceleration increased from -0.06mm/yr² to +0.084mm/yr² over
the last 12 years.
Short-term fluctuations are meaningless.
You’ll hear about them every time they can show an “increasing” trend; when the trend is decreasing, you’ll get “radio silence.”
Lying by omission is the Climate Fascist “stock in trade.”
In the linked page they show data only from the early 1990s and the data is adjusted. What are they hiding?
Forget satellites and tide gauges….
“”Clue to rising sea levels lies in DNA of 4m-year-old octopus, scientists say
Genes of Turquet’s octopus hold memories of melting of previous Antarctic ice sheet, raising fears of what another thawing could bring“”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/05/clue-to-rising-sea-levels-lies-in-dna-of-4m-year-old-octopus-scientists-say
Mental or what?
They found a living octopus that sat still and recorded sea levels for 4 million years?
Probably a Dalek with a broken temporal shifter.
But, just to be safe, better call Doctor Who! 😎
Try reading the article. The DNA results indicated that two different populations on opposite sides of the Antarctic were one population 125,000 years ago indicating that the ice sheet was melted at that time.
“Forget satellites and tide gauges….”
Better indicator: Millionaires, like the Obamas, sell their oceanside homes to escape sea level rise.
Wouldn’t melting glaciers be expected to cause sea levels to fall due to rebound?
Where the glaciers are, to be sure. But the water added via the melting would increase it, assuming you’re talking about land-based glaciers AND the meltwater can find its way to the ocean as opposed to being confined to an inland basin.
But that’s not going to happen anytime soon, so who cares? If it does it will be caused by forces beyond human control, not by some pittance of CO2 “emissions.”
Hi. Nice: calm, convincing. Two questions:
1) I assume some of the noise on the readings is correlated, some not. If you de-trend the data and average the residual noise, what do you see?
2) If you were a ‘Believer’ you would be looking harder for acceleration. Can you see any difference between earlier and later periods trends? How does the difference compare to the error bars on those trends? Some negative results of that kind could kill the ‘acceleration’ story stone dead.
R.
Worth another level of analysis here on the small subset of sites above is consideration of subsidence or lift of the ground surface relative to sea level. New York City’s relatively high rise of 11 inches, measurements at the Battery in lower Manhattan, is an area with obvious potential for subsidence due to the massive development of extremely tall buildings there (it would be interesting to compare that record with that at say Montauk Pt, which has no high rise development).
On the other end is Honolulu with a mere 3.6 inches of SLR, and it is known that the Hawaiian Islands are in an area where magma is rising and likely causing uplift. Even though Oahu’s volcano is extinct, there could still be an uplift effect centered on the big island of Hawaii which is an active volcanic zone.
I find it rather difficult to believe that actual sea level rise varies that much (by a factor of nearly X3) around the world when corrected for local land subsidence or lift.
Yes, I think places like the Battery in Manhattan and Atlantic City are quite possibly built on fill, which is likely sinking.
Not the Manhattan Battery tide gauge
I can’t speak for Atlantic City
The tide gauges are showing relative sea level so will measure oceans rising and land rising or falling.
Manhattan buildings are lighter than the weight of the rock and earth that was excavated for them. Don’t let the apparent volume fool you. Except for desks, chairs, a machine or two, most of what’s in an office building is air. The earth is solid, often granite, and very heavy.
450 million years ago what is now Manhattan was a mountain range. Over eons of time this was weathered down leaving the bedrock that supports Manhattans skyscrapers. This bedrock which was originally shale was compressed into schist which is super strong, by the weight of the now weathered down mountains. You can see huge rock outcroppings of this schist in Central Park. Bedrock usually extends hundreds of meters below the earths surface. The tunnels that go under the East Rive are carved out of bedrock. It doubtful that you could ever have enough weight to force the island to sink.
I got my MBA at the NYU Stern School of Business in Manhattan and visited the nearby (at the time) tide gauge there (as close as I could get to it). Not very exciting.
Coastal cities are sinking faster than sea-level rise (qz.com)
It really doesn’t matter if it is fill or not. The weight of such a densely developed concentration of very tall buildings actually compresses whatever soil is there and also quite possibly depresses the crust in that immediate area. Glaciers as they build up also depress the land beneath them and then the land rebounds after a glacier melts … it’s not anything that happens fast, but it happens and is measurable.
New York along with the Battery are sinking as North America tilts from the removal of the ice age ice. Just like the UK and Netherlands. Check out the maps at Sonel:
https://www.sonel.org/-Vertical-land-movements-
Planes boarding for Sitka Alaska now so panic early and save yourselves doomsters as they may be your very very very……………very last chance.
I wonder if those who rant about sea level rise- don’t know the difference between a slow, steady rise and an accelerating rise- which is what they prefer to say.
Much of the heat is lost to the deep ocean sink, which I believe means less steric sea level rise. Also, the enhanced land biosphere is offsetting some sea level rise by capturing more water every year. https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1704665115
Fertilization is clearly increasing, capturing more water. https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/14/4811/2022/
Gravimetric data show land capturing 77km^3/yr more water, or half of what Antarctica has been losing in it’s latest quasi cyclic decline.
https://twitter.com/aaronshem/status/1621957526265761792
Altimeter analysis says no acceleration either.
https://twitter.com/aaronshem/status/1621193954061328384
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-47340-z
During ther last Glacial Maximum, around 20,000 years ago, sea levels are estimated to have been between 120 to 130 metres lower than today.
For ease of calculation, let’s use the lower estimate of 120 metres, which is 120,000 mm. Divide that by 20,000, and one gets an average sea level rise during the past 20,000 years, of 6 mm per year, which is more than twice the rate of sea level rise during the past century.
This was a great CFACT.org article I had recommended on my old Honest Climate Chart blog in early January. My new blog is at the link below — it doesn’t show up show up when you click on my name above my comment like it used to: Honest Climate Science and Energy
Great author Jay Lehr, Ph.D., has since died and will be missed. Although not from sea level rise. A nice article about him by another excellent climate and energy writer, H. Sterling Burnett, is here:
Climate Change Weekly #459: Remembering Jay Lehr – Scholar, Truth Seeker, Friend, Eternal Optimist – The Heartland Institute
It must be mentioned that Antarctica is NOT warming from more CO2 in the atmosphere and will never warm from more CO2 in the air.
Therefore, sea level rise will be limited because 90% of the world’s ice will not melt from CO2 level increases.
The tide gauge relative sea level charts are proof of that. The satellite absolute sea level numbers, using satellites that can drift up to 10 feet in orbit, are government bureaucrat “scientist” claptrap. I’m sure, however, Nick the Stroker loves them there satellites..
At its thickest point the Antarctica ice sheet is 4,776 meters deep. It averages 2,160 meters thick, making Antarctica the highest continent. This ice is 90 percent of all the world’s ice and 70 percent of all the world’s fresh water.
Yes it seems that any CO2 warming that elsewhere might exist, over Antarctica either ceases or goes into reverse due to the peculiar atmospheric conditions.there. It’s almost as if Antarctica has only a Stratosphere, and no Troposphere.
https://ptolemy2.wordpress.com/2021/05/16/negative-greenhouse-effect-over-the-high-and-cold-antarctic-plateau/
The report that the 0blama and Michael bought a house on the seashore tells me that all this hullabaloo re: oceans rising is nothing to be concerned about. And the residents of Martha’s Vineyard gave the boot to the illegals bused to their locale, instead of handing over the keys due to encroaching sea levels, or something. Really simple.
Obama must have been planning to buy two oceanside mansions back in June 2006?
n June 2008, when Obama knew that he had clinched the Democratic nomination, he claimed that it “was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” Not only is Obama not a deity who controls the earthly waters, he’s not a good forecaster, either.
@ Drs Lehr and Hedke:
Says who ??? You do NOT even test for correlation before asserting there is none. If you mean “it looks pretty flat to me” just say so. Do not make spurious, pseudo-scientific assertions.
Secondly, why would you expect sea level to “correlate” with atm CO2 ?? The proposed warming is the integral effect of the supposed “excess” warming due the logarithm CO2 ratio.
If you do not even a test relevant variable you will have NO possibility of refuting the alarmist claims.
Do you think the readership here is so scientifically illiterate that none of this matters , are you that scientifically illiterate yourself or are you being deceitful ??
NotricksZone, I don’t think so.
I’m not sure that fighting BS with BS is a very helpful strategy. How about doing some science?
If you want to test the presence or absence of “acceleration” you need to fit a second order term , not a straight line. You do not even examine the residuals. You just force they eye with a linear trend and say QED. No cookie.
If you want to look for correlation , there are correlation tests. You need to do this using a relevant presentation of the variables. I agree there probably is very little correlation beyond a general upward trend in both quantities but that IS a correlation. Such a trivial correlation gives no grounds to suggest causation but that needs to be done scientifically, not by banal trend fitting of illogical supposed relationships.
I expect a better level of science from this site, not unscientific BS. How about posting one pertinent article rather than would-be skeptical BS which can be dismissed as disingenuous by the opposition?
yet again, and slowly this time. Science is not in the business of proving negatives. If the correlation or causation was true and easily verified or even difficult to verify but possible , then those claiming that increased CO2 will cause and is causing warming and as a result is causing rapid sea level rise and acceleration of the rise would be correct. The data on hand easily disproves the claim. no further work is needed.
Why don’t you shut up and prove the author wrong instead of your aimless generic ranting and raving?
Sea level at stable tide gauges with long term records show rise has been fairly steady since the late 1800s while CO2 emissions were small before 1940, moderate after 1940, and higher after 1975. What say you, Mr Smarty Pants?
Excellent post. One of several ways to show sea level rise is NOT accelerating. See my older guest post here, ‘Sea Level Rise, Acceleration, and Closure’. The fact that the estimate of thermosteric rise plus Greenland/Antarctic ice loss closes exactly with all dGPS corrected long running tide gauges (about 65 in total around the world) at 2.2mm/yr with no acceleration is compelling.
The lack of SLR acceleration—first predicted by Hansen in 1988—is one of several MAJOR climate alarm failures over the past 40 years. It only takes one to falsify the underlying premise.
What Antarctica ice loss?
Read my old post. There are footnotes to the original papers. Answers your question three different ways. Lots (NASA), none (Zwally) , a bit (newest dGPS corrected IGA observational estimate). I used ‘a bit’ =0.4 mm/year.
How’s everything look in regard to the recent increase in gravimetric ice loss in greenland and antarctica? Does any of that add up?
I suspect they are including sea ice or submerged ice somehow. More importantly, I wonder how those numbers compare to other models and past estimates for antarctica.
Also, how does CO2 fertilization and groundwater replenishment factor in? Ground water/Aquifers have been found to recharge faster than expected recently. Gravimetric analysis has land mass gaining water rather than losing it. CO2 fertilization itself implies about 25km^3 of water per year captured just by increasing biomass. https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1704665115
https://mobile.twitter.com/aaronshem/status/1620220526781431809
“If melting glaciers were causing sea levels to rise, one might expect to see it in Alaska.”
However, this statement is bizarre and misleading given that there is clearly isostatic rebound in alaska and water is fluid and does stay local in the ocean. That does hurt the credibility of the author.
An a acquaintance of mine who has a science degree seems to think that one meter of sea level rise is locked in .He has stated that twice in the last month .
It is a waste of time trying to tell him that the average sea level rise around the New Zealand coast is 1.5 millimeters per year which equates to 6 inches per century with no sign of acceleration ..
I have a friend who is a climate scientist at Wailkato University who sent me sea level rises around the New Zealand coast .
We have a so called climate scientist James Renwick from Victoria University who has swallowed the end of the world narrative.He gets a lot of press coverage and the news media like to quote him .
Most of the ice in Antarctic and Greenland would have melt to raise sea levels but both are stable and even accumulating ice despite dire predictions .
They are not real scientists, just pretenders.
Graham,
Just send your ‘scientist’ friend to me…we’ll sort him out!
Yes, Renwick is not stupid…he knows how to get media and social media hits. Ben Croll and the other NIWA & Victoria University ‘experts’ are just the same…We need to get Anthony Watts to move to New Zealand and give us some proper weather forecasts for a change.
I wonder how long until the pause starts to show up in sea level rise?
But what about the sea level change far from the coast line. That’s where NASA shows the acceleration is taking place. Just look at the area north of Australia!
This looks a bit like PDO caused ‘rise’. What is the timeframe here? The oceans slosh back and forth on a cm to dm scale due to PDO events…El Nino and La Nina, etc.
Here is NASA 1993-2008 evaluation of sea level rise. Great Barrier Reef better prepare for sunami unless Australian plate is subducting.
Dave Burton deserves a special note for the effort made in creating the Sealevel website
He does indeed…it’s a very useful resource.
The title is misstated; it should read “The RATE of sea level RISE Is Stable.”
I was alarmed for a minute – if sea level stopped rising, that would probably mean cooling was kicking in with a vengeance, and THAT would be bad news!
Ant chance the locations were cherry picked? I would not know an answer, I only anticipate the question.
The graphs are from Sea level Info, a great resource. For some reason they end at 2018 while Sea Level Info goes to Oct 2022.
Using Sea Level Info the rate for St Petersburg 1947-1990 was 2.33mm/yr, from 1990-2022 5.00mm/yr.
Port Isabel 1944-1990 2.67mm/yr, 1990-2022 6.01mm/yr.
Atlantic City 1914-1990 3.72mm/yr, 1990-2022 4.99mm/yr.
Sitka 1938-1990 minus 2.23mm/yr, 1990-2022 minus3.93mm/yr (gravitational effect of ice melt and isostatic rebound?)
Both Barack Obama and Al Gore purchased sea level housing after leaving office, so I don’t think they’re too concerned about sea level rise acceleration either. If you were, then you wouldn’t do that.
If sea level keeps rising at this enormous rate, by the time my 100th birthday comes around I will have to stand on a 2-3 inch platform at the sea edge to keep the soles of my shoes dry. How will we manage?