Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
So I open my electronic window onto the world this morning, and I find lots of wailing and gnashing of teeth about a projected sea level rise in the US state of Maine. Seems there’s something called the “Maine Climate Council”, which has un-named “scientists” advising it. Here, per the Portland [Maine] Press Herald, is an interactive map that you can use to scare yourself silly by choosing a given sea level rise and seeing who goes underwater. To give you an idea of how high they want you to dial up the alarmism, the article says (emphasis mine):
For reference, Maine sea levels are projected to rise between 1.1 and 3.2 feet by 2050 and between 3 and 9.3 feet by 2100, depending on how successful and quick we are at curbing global emissions rates, according to the scientists who advise the Maine Climate Council.
Now, folks who follow my work know that I’ve done a lot of analyses of sea level claims. And this one set my bad number detector ringing louder than Representative Bowman’s fire alarm.
And sadly, the hype runs deep in the study of the sea level. For example, in my post Munging The Sea Level Data, I demonstrated that the claims of modern acceleration in sea level rise come entirely from a totally invalid splicing of two sets of satellite-measured sea levels. Here’s the money graph from that post.

Figure 1. The four satellite records that are combined to claim acceleration.
Note that the earlier two satellites show a sea level rise of about 2.6 mm/year, which is in line with tide station data. But the latest two satellites show a rise that’s about 50% higher. And the unethical “scientists” using this satellite data fraudulently splice them all together, spread peanut butter over the splice so it can’t be seen, and scream “MASSIVE 50% ACCELERATION IN SEA LEVEL RISE!! EVERYONE PANIC!”. The fraud is shown below.

Figure 2. The artificial claimed “sea level acceleration”.
Grrr … the amount of flat-out lying by climate alarmists knows no bounds … but I digress.
Returning to Maine, NOAA has records from five tide gauges on the Maine coast. A couple of them are around a century long. And guess what?
Despite our total lack of success at “curbing global emissions rates” over the last century, not one of them shows the slightest sign of any acceleration in sea level rise.

Figure 3. Maine sea level records.
So I thought I’d project those records out to 2050, and compare them with the “scientists” claim that by 2050 the sea level in Maine would rise by 1.1 to 3.2 feet (335 to 975 mm, or 13 to 38 inches). Here’s the result. The “whisker bars” show the uncertainty in the projected rise.

Figure 4. Projected sea level rise to 2050, using the historical trends of the five cities, and also showing the rise that is projected by the “scientists who advise the Maine Climate Council”.
Yeah, that’s totally legit … not much else to say about that, except that when you hear someone talking about “climate change” and “sea level rise”, hang on to your wallet, because you’re being had.
Here, it’s a gloriously raining Sunday morning, with the football playoffs on TV (not the round ball kind) and our daughter, son-in-law, and two young grandkids whom my gorgeous ex-fiancée and I live with laughing and running around this big old house I built with my own hands … truly, dear friends, I’m the luckiest man in the world.
My very best to all,
w.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
All that expensive shoreline property is still insurable?
Carry on.
The tide gauges do show evidence of acceleration, Willis, you just haven’t done your due diligence in actually analyzing the data with any degree of rigor. I’ll look forward to your revised analysis.

Enough said… AlanJ cherry picking again.
I don’t think you have the slightest idea how trends are calculated, but regardless, the existence of previous periods of acceleration does not preclude an acceleration in recent years. Hope this helps clear your confusion.
I don’t think you have the slight clue what you are doing.
Cherry-picking a slightly steep part at the end, and pretending it represents acceleration.
Sorry.. just WRONG !!
Download data.
x² trend coefficient is 9×10^-6
Absolutely insignificant.
So, no acceleration
The fact that anyone would red-thumb a perfectly simple calculation, says more about the ignorance of the red-thumber than anything else.
Shows how stupidly gormless some of the AGW cultists are.
Please describe in detail how you computed the “X^2” coefficient.
HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAH
The trendologist doesn’t grasp linear regression.
oh dearie me, AlanJ really is totally ignorant. !!
It appears to be possible that our friends Bnice and karlomonte skipped the step during childhood development where theory of mind forms.
bnice, good catch.
However, I think your point would have been enhanced if you had connected the ends of the red lines to illustrate the drops in sea level at that gage. This would have shown a highly volatile oscillating trend typical of these gages.
Portland, with 110 years of data, illustrates that frequent oscillation even better. A series of dramatic increases followed by followed by flat-lines and even dramatic decreases that fluctuate around a linear increase in sea level.
Much ado about nothing.
Does it account for land rebound after all the state used to be under a tall ice cube.
Meanwhile why do so many here continually omit the source link.
I’m using the same tide gauge data that Willis cites, which displays relative, not eustatic, sea level. You can download it here:
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8413320
x² coefficient is 9×10^-6
Absolutely insignificant.
So, no acceleration
red thumb doesn’t like the mathematical FACTS.
Very sad.!
By the way Willis already included Bar Harbor in the figure 4 chart which is well below that preposterous acceleration rate projection the part you ignored.
When are you going to stop being dishonest?
Willis’ bar chart is just showing the historic linear trends projected out to 2050, i.e. he assumes no acceleration is present in the data and then provides the rise by 2050 with his baseless assumption baked in.
Seeing as there in no acceleration in the data, it is a quite logical assumption to make.
Pretending that cherry-picking a shallow increase at the end, shows acceleration.
That is just mathematical dishonesty.
He doesn’t understand why he is making a complete fool of himself in public since Willis is using the current NOAA data to honestly showing no long-term acceleration to extrapolate it out to 2050 then compare it to the PROJECTED and made-up sea-level acceleration guesses while Climate cultist boy does not seem to realize their projections have no data in it……
Then Steve Case pointed out how much of an acceleration it needs to be yearly to line up with those projections a rational approach that is clearly way over Alans head.
We are around 2.3 to 3.3 mm a year not even close!
LOL
That is how pathetic he is.
I notice you don’t comment about absolutely ludicrous “projected” estimates on the right hand side.
You don’t seriously think that “projected” sea level rise is even remotely possible or realistic, do you !!!!
Notice that AlanJ is TOO DISHONEST to answer. !!
Alan, you are so right, why didn’t he include real 2050 data? 🙂
HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW,
I notice you didn’t actually prove his figure 4 chart wrong, and you have yet to acknowledge the preposterous projected sea level rise of… bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
is profoundly stupid!
You also ignored figure 3 which then based on those NOAA data made Figure 4 projections showing how stupid their projections really are:
What Willis is presenting is far better assessment of what is really going on, but you failed to notice that because you suffer from terminal climate bogeyman illness.
First you lambast Willis for his honest sea level projection based on current NOAA sea level data while you haven’t once lambasted the absurd massive sea level rise projection wailed about in the Miami Hearald.
You are a very shallow thinker……..
“You are a very shallow thinker……..”
You give him way too much credit !
Nice pun!
It is not possible for AlanJ to stop being dishonest.
It is part of the propaganda he represents.
That is one of the worst cut ‘n’ paste jobs I have ever seen. You should be ashamed of yourself – a six yr old could do better.
Alan, first, as bnice showed before I could get to it, pretty much all tide gauges display short periods of increase and short periods of decrease. No one (well, except you) claims this means that there is overall acceleration.
Second, if you’re claiming that your graph shows that the Bar Harbor increase corresponds to the claimed increase in the spliced sea level data … it doesn’t. The increase in the spliced data occurs in an instant in 2011.
But the Bar Harbor data bottoms out around 2015.
You’re making the same mistake the alarmists make when they look at the last thirty years and scream “SEA LEVEL IS ACCELERATING!!!”.
But here’s the reality.
As you can see, yes, over the last 30 years sea level rise has been accelerating. But before that, it was decelerating … and before that, it was accelerating … and before that, it was decelerating … lather, rinse, repeat.
Regards,
w.
There’s that approx 60-year cycle I was suggesting.
Although the yellow line seems to show a 30-year cycle. Interesting
Thanks Willis.
You claim there is no acceleration evident in Bar Harbor, I show that there is, and rather than dispute this, you simply claim, based on nothing, that you think the acceleration will not continue. That’s all fine and well, but you still need to amend your inaccurate post, which asserts something that is false.
In any case, while the Jevrejeva data are a huge outlier, all modern SLR reconstructions show an acceleration in modern times unmatched by earlier periods:
The insistence that there is no unusual acceleration is just one of the denier myths this forum seems intent on spreading, a misinformation campaign you seem oddly keen on joining into.
You did not “show that there is” acceleration in the Bar Harbor data. There’s not a scientist on the planet who would do anything but laugh at that method for determining acceleration.
You drew a stupid trend line on about 7 years of data and claimed it meant something. All that did was mark you as a foolish noob with no understanding of acceleration. As bnice showed, you can do that in many places in the data. It proves nothing.
I showed you using three different datasets that the rate of sea level rise has accelerated and decelerated a number of times in the past. You ignored that entirely.
I can’t deal with that level of ignorance and deliberate blindness. And your colossal arrogance in demanding, demanding that I amend my post based on your uninformed ravings is hilarious.
I’m done with you. Talk to the hand.
w.
Willis, the method is to show that there is evidence of acceleration in the bar harbor tide gauge series. The method does this. It does not show that the evidence is robust – perhaps it is the case that the uncertainty bounds for the single tide gauge series is too large to say for certain. But you don’t show this, or even attempt to make such an argument. You just falsely claim that there is not the “slightest hint” of acceleration in the data, and then pivot to “well, there’s been acceleration in the past” when called out on it.
I do agree that it’s in your best interest to bow out here to avoid embarrassing yourself further. I’m disappointed but unsurprised that you refuse to be intellectually honest and correct the misinformation you’ve posted.
The cherry-picking of a short period during an El Nino year, does NOT SHOW ANYTHING
There is NO ACCELERATION in the Bar data.. period..
x² coefficient is 9×10^-6
Absolutely insignificant.
So, no acceleration
Understand the maths.. or remain totally ignorant..
… and totally DISHONEST.
“avoid embarrassing yourself “
Only person who should be suffering any embarrassment is YOU, AlanJ
You have proven you are an incompetent, mathematically-illiterate nincompoop… AGAIN. !!
But you are an AGW cultist, immune to feeling embarrassment and shame.
I did NOT say “Well, there’s been acceleration in the past”. That’s a FAKE QUOTE YOU JUST MADE UP, and I don’t let slimy creeps like you put words in my mouth.
I said that your method is a joke. You can draw lines like yours in most any natural dataset. They do NOT mean past acceleration.
Next, you can stuff your nasty accusation that I’m not “intellectually honest” as far up the distal end of your esophagus as your tiny arms will reach. I’m an honest man, and it seems you’re unacquainted with the breed.
Here’s a clue. I won’t stand for some coward, a “man” who doesn’t even have the spine to sign his own name to his words, falsely accusing me of dishonesty of any kind.
I was brought up under what in my family was called the “Captain’s Code”. The Captain was my great-grandfather, a Mississippi riverboat captain. His Code was his written-down rules for life.
One part of the Captain’s Code was this:
I’ve done my best to live up to that. Of course, it’s not 1865 these days, so unfortunately I can’t kill you for your vile lie about me. I can’t even block you from this site.
But I’m not going to let your scummy action go unnoticed. Instead, I’m going to point out to everyone reading this that you are a scientifically clueless, spineless, testicle-free damn liar, and you should be shunned by all honest folk.
My invitation to everyone?
Let him babble, don’t feed the troll. Have pity on him, don’t engage with him in any way. Instead, just let him play with himself—it’s likely the only sex he’ll get this month.
Grrr … what happened to the Code Duello?
So go ahead, Alan … rave on.
w.
Ah, veiled death threats. How droll. Guess there might be good reasons why I wouldn’t post my full identity online for you, eh Willis?
Here is another view of the trends for the Bar Harbor tide gauge:
Each point is the trend from that date to present day. Ignoring the most recent behavior, which is certainly responding simply to the length of the trend, I think there is quite clear evidence of SLR acceleration. What do you think? Again, you could have performed a more robust analysis to either confirm or deny this, but you decided to publish completely unsubstantiated claims, and then refused to re-examine them when contrary evidence was presented, then doubled down on it, making you quite dishonest indeed.
Again, using a very short term but shallow uptick at the very end to PRETEND that means acceleration.
It really is absolute mathematical DISHONESTY and truly idiotic way of trying to FAKE acceleration.
The recent behaviour is less than the other short term changes,
A mathematical calculation of the whole data shows no acceleration.
Get over it.!
You are showing what an incredibly STUPID and gormless idiot you are.
If you can prove to me that you actually understand what the graph is showing, I will humor you with a serious reply. You get one attempt.
You are so MORONIC you don’t even understand what you are doing.
You are calculating trends on ever decreasing data, until your calculation disappears up its own rectum
The “Hockey stick” at the end depends TOTALLY on the small upward section you have cherry-picked. It is totally meaningless.
And if you get even a slight drop from now, your idiotic graph will collapse like the sloppy quicksand it is.
It is one of the most mathematically STUPID and ILLITERATE pieces of garbage I have ever seen.
Bnice, you really must learn to read more carefully. Your comments rarely add anything of value because you don’t ever understand what is actually being discussed. I was quite clear in saying in the original comment that the very end behavior – that extreme uptick – is simply an artifact of the short time period. It’s the gradual upward curve prior to that extreme uptick that I am referring to.
You really are outing yourself as a completely moronic mathematical illiterate.
And you are SO DUMB that you don’t even realise it.
Working backwards from a slight spike, will always to that on a linear trend.
The whole calculation is reliant on that slight spike.
It is a MONUMENTALLY STUPID way of doing it.
And when the SL drops below the linear trend again, then your mathematically illiterate method will show a curve going the other way.
And because I KNOW you are too stupid to understand what you are doing, I drew this little diagram for you.
It is your idiotic methodology that creates the curve.
“It is the presence of acceleration that creates the appearance acceleration you idiot.”
Bnice, the statistical wizard everyone.
Since you seem to genuinely be struggling, despite all the vitriol and bile you’re spitting, I will throw you a lifeline. Here is the same graph with the most recent 20 years omitted. That removes the trends that are being heavily influenced by noise in the dataset:
Does this look linear to you? Or does the rate of increase appear to be increasing? There’s no dramatic uptick at the end, but there data are unequivocally showing an upward curve.
To be sure, you can perform a variety of statistical tests to evaluate the robustness of this apparent acceleration, but Willis hasn’t done this. He’s just made the singular false claim that there isn’t even a “hint” of acceleration, and dug his heels in and stuck his fingers in his ears when called on it.
Sorry you are TOTALLY INCAPABLE of understanding the mathematical idiocy of your calculation.
Everyone with any basic mathematical ability, will see straight through it. !!
You really are a mathematical illiterate.. not worth bothering with !!
Your other alter egos giving red-thumbs are proving themselves just as mathematically ignorant..
… or do you have access to several IP addresses, and it is just your petty DISHONESTY showing through.
Still no comment on the utterly ludicrous “projection”
You really are a complete COWARD as well, aren’t you.
You have chosen a point just above the linear trend as your end point, haven’t you
So petty and so hilariously DISHONEST. !!
ROFMLAO. No you are still using the top of the recent trend to calculate your back-trends
All you did was delete the data after 2003ish.
You are STILL totally clueless how MATHEMATICALLY INEPT you really are.
So little understanding of what you are actually doing.
It really is some of the most STUPID mathematical nonsense anyone has ever tried to push.. and that really is saying something.
The behavior of the trends is minimally influenced by the end point if the trends are on the order of a decade or more. Here are the trends up to only 2016, I’ve again omitted the most recent years because the trends are too short to show the actual behavior of the series and I didn’t want your little head getting even more confused:
You do like to insist on being wrong all the time.
AlanJ continues with his mathematically illiterate nonsense.
1.. Created linear data from Sept 1947 = -0.1 to July 2018 = 0.1 (this is a close enough match to Bar Harbour LINEAR trend
2.. Use AlanJ’s idiot-mathematics method to back calculate the linear trends from August 2018
3.. Set August 2018 to 0.2 and graph linear trends (orange graph)
4.. Set August 2018 to 0.0 and graph linear trend (green graph)
As anyone can see, this idiot’s method that AlanJ is hanging onto with gormless ignorance and desperation actually creates an appearance of acceleration in totally linear data, based on the value of just one end point !
(Or deceleration if that single end point is below the trend line.)
It is a MATHEMATICALLY ILLITERATE METHOD.
You are a complete FAILURE, AlanJ, and need to get an education from some junior high students somewhere.
And here it is revealed, in the final analysis, that Bnice does not, in fact, have a clue how trends are calculated. The best fit line is not determined by drawing a straight line from the first point in a series to the last point in the series, it is determined by fitting a line that minimizes the sum of the squared distances from each point in the series to the line. If a graph of the trends is rising, it means the trends are getting steeper (acceleration). Here is a made up series with a linear (non-accelerating) trend:
And the trends form a flat line:
Here is a made up series with an exponential increase (acceleration):
And the trends form a rising line:
https://imgur.com/a/HO50Qfn
Again, you can do some statistical analysis to determine whether the data are too noisy to determine if a change in trend is really occurring, but Willis has not done this. There appears to be an increasing trend in the Bar Harbor tide gauge data. So when Willis claims, based on nothing, that there is not, he is wrong. When he doubles down when shown evidence to the contrary, he is being dishonest.
I notice you don’t comment about absolutely ludicrous “projected” estimates on the right hand side.
Why is that?
Even a gormless fool like you can’t possibly put and credence is such a monumentally idiotic and anti-scientific “projection”.
Again, noted that AlanJ is too COWARDLY to comment on the ludicrous “projected” garbage.
Why is that Alan?
Even a gormless fool like you can’t possibly put any credence on such a monumentally idiotic and anti-scientific “projection”.
“Death threats” … best laugh all morning.
w.
I see you’ve deftly avoided addressing the substance of my comment yet again. Bravo. I’m sure your acolytes will lap it up.
Your comment has ABSOLUTELY NO SUBSTANCE
It is built on an undefinable and total lack of mathematical understanding.
It has ZERO CREDIBILITY.
“ there is not the “slightest hint” of acceleration in the data”
And that was a totally correct claim.
There is no acceleration.. period !!
Willis, why do you even engage these (trolls?, zealots?, intellect-challenged?) folks?
eck, I was brought up among ranchers and cowboys. Many of the cowboys had little but a saddle, maybe a revolver, and their honor.
And that last, they guarded as jealously as any Victorian gentleman.
Like them, and like my great-grandfather The Captain, I simply won’t stand for a man calling me a liar. Yes, I know it’s a 19th-Century tradition and likely out of touch with the modern madness, but it’s my life and at 76, I’m not likely to change …
My best to you and yours,
w.
So, according to Jevrejeva, for example, in 1870 the rate was ~2 mm/yr. By 1930 it dropped to <1 mm/yr. By 1950 it had rocketed to ~ 3 mm/yr. But in 1970, back down to ~ 1 mm/yr., where it was 40 years earlier. By 2010, about 4 mm/yr. My guess is a least curves plot would indicate an increase of 3 mm/yr over the last 150 years, or 0.02 mm/yr2 acceleration. Maybe. And it looks pretty similar for the other plots. Ridiculous panicking over tiny numbers.
The insanity of people who post stuff like this chart is that, right in front of their eyes, there’s evidence that “adding carbon” to the atmosphere cannot possibly be responsible for all changes in sea level or temperature or what have you.
Yet that’s what they get out of these charts. This one seems to be showing a negative change in acceleration the last few years. What’s causing that? Probably nothing.
The Bar Harbor Inn continues to develop its spectacular property. Down the coast, the Obamas continue to enjoy their beautiful shoreland. Al Gore counts his millions daily and Taylor Swift spends more time on private jets than she spends thinking about the Kansas City Chiefs. What crisis?
“What Crisis?”
The crisis is the lack of education and intelligence of the AGW cultists and people who listen to them.
Typical dishonesty from AnalJ – coloring the 2022 to 2023 portion in orange to fool us into thinking there is any acceleration.
Only person he is fooling IS HIMSELF.
Everyone else is well aware of his malfeaces
They’re all going to die. The coast of Maine, which has survived countless horrific storms over many millennia, will be swept away by a few millimeters of sea rise.
w. ==> Thanks for covering this…I had it on my list. More RCP8.5 utter nonsense.
SLR would have to far more than double, triple, quadruple every single year between now and 2050 — the journalist for the Press Hearld has failed to do her simplest duty: Ask questions! Did she ask and answer: Exactly what is happening with SLR in Maine today? No. How about: How is it supposed to turn into THAT in 27 years? No.
No journalism — 0nly able to parrot “experts” who are clearly speaking from their own misunderstandings.
Willis,
Your “Munging the Numbers” article was in February 2021, I believe. Since then, NASA has updated its public sea level chart to include data to October 9, 2023. That adds almost 3 years of data. (sorry – I don’t know how to add that chart to this response).
But there is something weird about that time. Eyeballing that chart, it looks like the sea level rise slowed down for the first 2.5 years after your article plot, and then jumped at the end of 2023 to put it back on track with the prior Topex 2 and Topex 3 “steady” rates of around 3.7-4.1 mm/yr. So, no apparent acceleration in the last 13 years.
Also, aren’t Maine’s gages measuring Relative Sea Level? And isn’t Maine rebounding from the last glaciation? So the gages are rising to some degree along with sea level rise. This could explain why the gage measurements you show for the five stations are down in the 2 mm/year range. I wonder if the experts at the “Maine Climate Council” even knew about this.
Jerry ==> NASA satellite measurements are hugely complicated calculations that basically add a bit to the assumed long-term Tide Gauge average of 1.8 mm/yr — that is to say, they do all those calculations, ignoring uncertainties that are orders of magnitude larger then the signal being sought, and then add that little difference to 1.8 mm/yr through simple addition.
The little ups and downs in the satellite record are meaningless — literally meaningless. There is no Real World SLR acceleration — it is all computational hubris.
When I or w. or others (Steve Case, Dave Burton) here write about SLR and show Tide Gauge charts that are perfectly linear, it is because SLR is linear — not accelerating — neither slowing nor speeding up.
The Maine “experts” are just parroting the IPCC’s worst case — the impossible RCP8.5 scenario projections.
Kip, all excellent points. Thanks!
I think the Warmistas are getting desperate and are in a panic since the “Deniers” aren’t denying sea level rise at all, but rather they are now using widely-available and credible data plus math and logic to dismantle their claims of rapid and increasing acceleration of sea level rise. And as time goes on, their predictions will continue to fail and their credibility with those paying the Green New Deal costs will erode with time.
I love the bit about ‘curbing emissions’. If either natural or Asian coal, there is absolutely not a chance that the Keeling Curve will be checked. So alarmists had better get used to it. And it has very little effect on the weather.
_________________________________________________________________
That comes to a rate of 12.9 – 37.5 mm/year over the 26 years until 2050.
NOAA Tides and Currents Sea Level Trends says:
…the absolute global sea level rise is
believed to be 1.7-1.8 millimeters/year.
Colorado University’s Sea Level Research Group C-SLRG says:
Average rate: 3.5 ± 0.4 mm/y
Acceleration: 0.083 ± 0.025 mm/yr²
The chart below shows the distribution of acceleration of sea level rise from Dave Burtan’s Sea Level Info page on the internet.
Anyone with an Excel spread sheet can verify Dave’s numbers by downloading individual tide gauge annual data from the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level PSMSL and plot out the 2nd order polynomial trend while selecting [Display Equation on chart] and multiply the x² value by 2 to yield the acceleration in mm/year².
The numbers quoted from The Portland Press Herald in the above article don’t agree in the least with readily available tide gauge data. The numbers published by C-SLRG are calculated from what is now a 30 year period which isn’t enough to display the changes in the rate of sea level rise over the decades since the early 19th century when the first tide gauges began keeping records. Plus
C-SLRG has seriously made changes to their historical data.
And NO-ONE with any basic understanding of mathematics would extrapolate a polynomial curve outside the data bounds, especially on such chaotic data with unknown longer term oscillations involved.
None of these folks have ever been held accountable for making projections using this kind of analysis. Newbies only do it once, and hopefully find employment elsewhere.
The same is true for extrapolations of y = mx + c regression fits, except these won’t oscillate.
Willis, it’s good. Maybe you know, I think you do, but in case you don’t: the satellite sea level graphs originally came from NOAA-NESDIS-STAR. For others: the satellites named in the graph use radar to measure sea state and sea level. Full disclosure: STAR is a former customer when I worked weather satellites & forecasting systems as a contractor. Good people who are held accountable for accuracy. Unlike academia.
STAR was organized to figure out how to use data from new atmospheric satellites more quickly after they reach orbit. The science is difficult & it is not taught in schools. It is possible the apparent graph slope change comes from improvements in the radar instruments. Figuring out how to compare new instrument data with older data is a difficult problem. That is true for all on-orbit instruments; not just radar. The site is marked “experimental” because of how NOAA is organized. NESDIS-OSPO is authorized to issue operational satellite data. NWS is authorized to issue weather forecasts. The original graph, along with other data, is here. The worldwide map is also instructive. Always enjoy your writings, Willis.
https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/socd/lsa/SeaLevelRise/
Lying and cheating are not okay. At some point these criminals need to be held accountable.
This being Maine, how much glacial rebound is affect tide gauges? Aren’t they rising? Would they make the apparent sea level rise seem more or less? Serious question. I’d think rising gauges would make the sea level rise appear less but I’m just a dumb land surveyor not a “SCIENTIST.”
Interested ==> Maine is north of the assumed hinge point for North America — usually considered about at Boston,MA. This would mean that Maine, if anything,is rising (unlike areas to the south, which are subsiding).
Eastport Maine is subsiding and Bar Harbor is rising….(Snay et al. 2007)
Here’s a graph of the change due to glacial rebound, supports Kip’s post.
grl54201-fig-0001-m.jpg
And they claim that the satellites are calibrated by using tide gauge data?
rah ==> One Tide Gauge….Corsica.
With the amount of ground water being pumped out for cities and agriculture there should be some affect on sea levels. No amount of co2 can change this
At the same time, as ground water is pumped out the land settles lower and lower which will appear to be sea level rise.
True locally. Not globally. Explained in guest post ‘sea level rise, acceleration, and closure’ here years ago. Not enough ground water to affect the vast oceans.
I presume after this article was published real estate prices on the coast have collapsed.
“In December 2023, the median listing home price in Portland, ME was $700K, trending up 8.2% year-over-year.” – Realtor.com
…. curiouser and curiouser!
Use the figures for analyse of change of change:https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8418150
Change was bigger during the 1955 SUV season 😉
Most people have no comprehension of what acceleration even means. My evidence……. the invention of the automobile!
The commonly named ‘gas pedal’ was officially named the ‘accelerator’ despite spending the vast majority of its time as a ‘maintainerator’. The public quite easily adopted this lie. Worse, neither the common name, gas pedal, nor the official name, accelerator, has been given its appropriate green name, ‘currenterator’.
Earth’s sea level is not at all like earth’s temperature. Temperature at any one point on earth can be quite independent of temperatures not far away from it. For sea level, adding a drop of water to the sea in the middle of the Atlantic, has a tiny but determinable effect on sea level in the middle of the Pacific. If sea level is high in one place, water will quickly flow to nearby lower places. Other than relatively minor percentages due to prevailing wind, air pressure, currents, evaporation and rain, there clearly can be an “average” sea level for earth, at any one time.
When one tide gauge gives markedly different trends than others nearby, the explanation is at the unique gage site, not at the rest of the earth.
Umm … well … kinda.
You’ve left out some interesting factors.
One is the El Nino/La Nina alteration, which affects sea levels all across the Pacific.
Another is the slow side-to-side “sloshing” of the water in the great ocean basis, which can have long periods of up to fifty years or so. This often lead to periods of acceleration and deceleration of sea level rise at any given gauge site.
As a result, different tidal gauges can give different trends.
My best to you,
w.
As I mentioned earlier, a somewhat chaotic oscillation on top of an other linear trend.
As we have seen, any fool can pick out little sections and say.. “look how quickly its rising”.
Then.. it drops back down to the underlying linear trend
“Projected” — weasel word euphemism to avoid using “predicted”.
And of course anomalized “sea level” graphs never show the daily-weekly-yearly range of real tides at any location.