by Dr. Alan Welch FBIS FRAS
General Summary
This study consists of two parts:-
Part 1 – Variation of NOAA Sea Levels globally and for the 24 sub-areas.
Part 2 – Variation of NOAA Sea Level data based on individual satellites.
Most of the figures can be found in 2 Google Drive files details of which can be found in the appropriate Parts.
Part 1 – NOAA Sea Levels – Variation of each sub-area
Having studied the sea level data released on https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/ over the last 7 years in became opportune to apply the same methods and procedures to the NOAA data released on https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/socd/lsa/SeaLevelRise/LSA_SLR_timeseries.php.
These datasets were published at irregular intervals and listed the sea level readings from the 5 individual satellites both globally and for 24 sub-areas of the Oceans, Seas and Gulfs. As each sub-area has generated at least 5 graphs there are well in excess of 130 graphs produced, too much for a paper, but they can all be found on a Google Drive link https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KCYo7iYmVxbEoTubeP7YB06jEVQo82k5/view?usp=sharing.
This paper will not go into much discussion but will act as a depository for the graphs for others to have access to. The following notes describe the study.
1. Both the individual satellite results and the combined results for each sub-sea have been studied but this paper only concerns the latter. Graphs for all sub-seas have been produced. Some aspects of the individual satellite results will be reported in Part 2.
2. The order of the presentation will be different from the NOAA order as follows:-
First the Global results
Next 22 sub-seas listed in increasing value of Easting. The Easting for each area is defined as the number of degrees E an approximate centre of the sub-sea is East of the 180-degree longitude. The reason for doing this is in the off chance that one or more derived parameters varies in a systematic way in the longitudinal direction which would be informative.
Finally, the 2 circum-global areas, namely the Southern Oceans and the Tropics.
3. When analysing the combined results if two satellites have the same date/time then their values are averaged.
4. The data are from Sept 2024. The latest available data are for about the end Feb 2025. At the time of writing no updates have taken place since Feb 2025.
5. The graphs produced for each area are as follows with the graphs for the Yellow Sea being used to illustrate:-
- A graph, Figure 1, of all the satellite readings colour coded for each satellite.
Figure 1
- A graph, Figure 2, of the full combined data with the linear and quadratic best fit lines shown together with their equations. It may seem rather excessive precision has been used but better to be safe than sorry. Sometimes actual year dates, like 1993, may have been used and when powers of these appear in equations extra precision must be used to guarantee accuracy.
Figure 2
- A graph, Figure 3, of residuals defined as the actual value minus the equivalent value on the linear best fit line. Added is a best fit sinusoidal curve calculated via an iterative process along with the parameters of that curve.
Figure 3
- In Figure 4 is a spectral analysis of the data indicating any peaks generally between about periods of 10 and 40 years. Usually, peaks with about a 10-year period or less are due to irradiance variation or El Niño events.
Figure 4
- A plot, Figure 5, of how the derived “acceleration” changes with the year of determination. In previous papers it was suggested that this plot for analyses of the Global Sea Level was important in the way it changed with time. It seemed that the shape was like a slightly underdamped sinusoidal oscillation, but events change so slowly that repeating it for several other sea areas may prove informative.
Figure 5
At this stage a short thought on the term global sea level. Both Tidal Gauges and Satellite readings are not global. The former cover only a very limited portion of the sea but the length of monitoring can be useful as some stretch back over 200 years. Conversely the satellite coverage is just over 30 years and covers 95% of the seas. In previous work I have suggested that this missing 5% is the cause of the sinusoidal oscillation in the global variation. Also, that the missing 5% may mainly be found in the North Atlantic, North Sea and Arctic Ocean areas. A preliminary investigation some years ago of several Tidal Gauge records of ports in these areas showed promise but a further study making more use of spectral analysis has been carried out that is more comprehensive and will be reported on at a later date.
The results of the various analyses have been collated in several tables. A first preliminary look at the satellite and residual plots was made to ascertain if any data were suspicious. Having calculated all the residuals a histogram was produced for each sea and the standard deviation derived. The table of statistics is shown below, Table 1.
Table 1
The South China Sea and the Tropics each contained a suspicious reading. Calculating the ratio of the maximum absolute value of any residual to the standard deviation showed values of 13.3σ and 11.8σ respectively, which are very large hence they were replaced by the average of the 2 adjacent values. The analyses then proceeded with Table 2 giving the slopes and “accelerations” for each sea. Results for the South China Sea and the Tropics are presented but only using the modified data.
Table 2
The next stage was fitting a sinusoidal curve via an iterative process. The equation is shown in Excel Format.
= CONST + AMP * SIN(((SHIFT + 2 * A1)/PERIOD) * PI())
where CONST is a constant mean sea level (mm)
AMP is a +/- amplitude variation (mm)
SHIFT is a phase shift (years)
and PERIOD is a period of a complete oscillation (years)
Table 3 shows the results of the curve fitting, again in order of increasing Eastings.
Table 3
Following the spectral analyses a comparison was made between the Period derived in the equation fitting and the main Period found in the spectral analysis. All agreed within about 5% and most within 2% except for the result for the Persian Gulf which was 50% different. The curve fitting gave a period of 12.2 years, but the spectral analysis showed 2 peaks of 12.3 and 24.5 years as shown in the Figure 6 below. A best fit curve with a longer period is also shown in the file of graphs.
Figure 6
The Indian Ocean and the adjacent seas and gulfs show multiple peaks or short periods in the spectral analysis. The Indonesian Sea has a single peak of 10.9 years, but this may be due to irradiance. The Indonesian Sea is studded with 100’s of islands with its own particular flow pattern. But what is of interest is the convergence plot that shows more clearly the damped oscillations pattern as is seen in Figure 7.
Figure 7
Finally, the Eastings order was used to see if there was any variation with longitude with any parameter. No totally clear evidence was found but below in Figure 8 is a plot of “acceleration” against Easting for the 24 areas which does not appear to be a random graph .
Figure 8
If there was a decadal oscillation around the Earth it would show up in the phase shifts which would affect the “acceleration” calculation. This effect was investigated by repeating the Indian Ocean calculation but starting the data in 2000 instead of 1993. Starting in 1993 it now registers an “acceleration” but starting in 2000 it registers a “deceleration”. Both analyses are shown in the file of graphs. The corresponding sinusoidal curves and spectral analyses are little changed.
At the start it was stated that this work was not a thorough analysis of all the NOAA sub-sea datasets but more a systematic presentation of a large amount of analysis and graphical presentation for others to comment upon. It is hoped readers may find it informative. I know many are sceptical of any curve fitting be it quadratic or sinusoidal. Many reject the data totally, but with such a large database of readings it seemed a waste not to carry out some investigations. If you don’t look you don’t find.
Part 2 – NOAA Sea Levels – Variation based on individual satellites
Following on from Part 1 when the averaged sea levels were studied, Part 2 investigates the individual satellite readings. Little has been produced studying the separate satellites although one example has been shown a number of times, namely the graph by Willis Eschenbach shown in Figure 9.
Figure 9
This has been used to help discredit the findings that an acceleration in sea level rises exists – a worthy use. To a lesser extent the graph has been used to discredit the sinusoidal curve fitting but as part of this analysis the equivalent graph has been produced and is shown in Figure 10.
Figure 10
It can be seen that we are all singing from the same hymn sheet. But Nature and NASA may have combined to mislead somewhat. Figure 10 can be modified by subtracting the linear fit values from all the readings. This results in Figure 11. On this are marked 2 points of inflection where the curvature changes sign. These are at a residual value of -0. 2 mm.
Figure 11
Each half of the sinusoidal curve is skew symmetric about an inflection point and in this case the 2 sets of satellite data are roughly skew symmetric about an inflection point. If they had been exactly skew symmetric then each pair of satellites would have had the same slope. Hence having 2 pairs of satellite data with almost the same slope is a sign that the data may follow approximately a sinusoidal curve. Plots similar to Figure 11 are produced for all 24 sub sea areas and most are different from the Global graph as they have different phase shifts and/or different periods. The only similar case is that of the Atlantic Ocean which hints that this has some input to why the Global variation has a sinusoidal variation.
Each region of sea will generally have 3 plots which are described by reference to the Yellow Sea again.
All the graphs can be found on the Google Drive file.
The first graph, Figure 12, shows the linear fit to all the data together with the linear line for each satellite. All the lines for the Sentinel-6MF satellite are more erratic due to the short period involved and the domination of the latest El Niño during this period.
Figure 12
Figure 13 shows the 5 satellite linear lines superimposed on a best fit sinusoidal curve.
Figure 13
Finally, Figure 14, shows all the individual data with the best fit sinusoidal curve superimposed.
Figure 14
The 2 sets of graphs are arranged to have a similar outlay with each sub area occupying one page. If possible, they can be viewed side by side on a split screen. Figure 15 shows a split screen presentation for the Indonesian Sea. Some computers/systems may not be able to accomplish this.
Figure 15
Comparing the first figure of each sub area with the “global” plot only the Atlantic plot is similar except for the 2 special areas namely the Southern Seas and the Tropics. The North Atlantic and North Sea do not compare with the “global” so no definitive conclusion can be made. Having said that the Atlantic Ocean, North Atlantic Ocean and North Sea all have a period in the range 24 to 27 years according to the fitted sinusoidal curves. It is planned to revisit the question of why the “global” sea level has a variation by using later procedures, like spectral analysis, on the Tidal Gauges in the northern reaches of the Atlantic Ocean.
# # # # #
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I think science/math illiterates think that if something is rising- that it’s accelerating even if it isn’t.
All islands are at risk of tipping over and capsizing. Democratic Congressman Hank Johnson
Hank could be forgiven for thinking Guam had reached its “tipping point”.
The underside of Guam looks very much like the topside.
(seen through Hank’s beer goggles)
I’m pretty sure that Hank smoked a ton of weed before this speech that revealed his inner Michael Mann.
Only stoned people have this uncanny skill to talk total nonsense and being so focused and serious about it.
See Kamala
Kamala is on something else.
She does not have the pathetic but sincer and hoenest approach of a Ganja – member.
She is full of herself and always tries to say something earthshatteringly important.
Weedsmokers have some issues but usually not egoproblems and narcissistic tendencies as Kamala has,
therefore I’d side with the Wodka -Xanax for breakfast,dinner and lunch theory.
She’d probably start crying if she smoked weed.
Actually, it wasn’t in a speech . . . it was in a question Hank posed to US Navy Admiral Robert Willard, 22nd Commander, U.S. Pacific Command.
See and hear the actual interchange here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5dkqUy7mUk
That stupid-a$$ question must have been a deer-in-the-headlights moment for the Admiral, but true to his rank and his experience with politicians, he handled it with aplomb, concluding with his answer of “Uh, we don’t anticipate that . . .”
One of more laughable moments among the many that Congress has given us!
The link does not work in Australia on my average PC, says it has not been uploaded here by supplier. Geoff S
As an alternative, have you tried using a search engine that is available in Australia, with the search terms “video US Hank Johnson Guam tipping over”?
Doing so you might uncover a valid link to an equivalent posting of the video . . . my understanding is that it went viral internationally. And rightly so!
Maybe he remembered about cow-tipping (while drunk)?
“Approximately 40% of the world’s population lives within 100 kilometers of the coast, with estimates varying based on the definition of “coastline” and distance. A significant portion of this population, about 15%, lives within 10 kilometers (about 6 miles) of the water”
Quote was where first googling landed me. A better answer to the question I did not ask would be a scatter plot of world population vs altitude. Apple Iwatch and Garmin Forerunner data would be skewed toward US and Europe. How would one even get that chart? Is it in any climatologist presentation? Darn it someone out there needs to put down their supercomputer terminal and blow my grandkids retirement money on counting how high people live.
Added note after paying more attention to the actual content: “In Figure 4 is a spectral analysis of the data”
Can’t really trust data about things being cyclical at any rate unless you’re sampling at least 2x as long as the cycle. Figure 4 goes to 40 years. I don’t trust sea level measurements from 1950s to hang my hat on.
The Continental Plates tip, so the 100 km from the sea coast number must be qualified by where and on which Plate the location is. Think about the contrast of 100 Km from the Oregon coast and 100 Km from the Carolinas coast.
The SW tilt of the North American plate results in everything lose rolling into California.
KevinM,
“counting how high people live”
Judging from widespread semi-coherent conduct, I am guessing that a lot of the people I deal with are high a lot of the time. Geoff S
Tom Wysmuller , ex NASA , pointed out to me at a Heartland conf that these millimeter measurements are done with 20+cm wavelength microwaves . Thus on the order of 1% of a wavelength — in the middle of oceans with swells an order of a meter+ .
Further , he pointed out that any thermal expansion can only be significant in deep water .
The only measurements that count are tide gauges .
I hesitate to say because my experience with terrain-mapping radar is old, but using phase interferometry you can get good accuracy in that area. The NASA guys who actually built the satellite might have been asked for impossible results but they recruit guys who break the scale on math tests so I bet they’re doing a pretty good job and that they report data with un-fudged error bars. Now what their managers do with the data…
Maybe Tom W was trying to speak on behalf of the engineers – like “hey don’t trust what these guys are trying to say using our data”
It’s been a few years back since I dug into this but I remember thinking that this whole measurement of sea level is a farce.
First, satellites drift in the range of meters. That means any measurement has a varying starting point which affects the accuracy of the total distance. Supposedly, GPS satellites can determine the size of this drift, but that makes me doubtful that it can be measured to the mm resolution.
Second, the supposed accuracy is accomplished by averaging a months’ worth measurements and then using the basic climate science technique of increasing the resolution by dividing by the √n to obtain a small, small standard deviation of the mean. Think about how many pulses can be sent over a month’s time and you’ll see how big the √n can be.
The wavelength of the measuring wave doesn’t especially concern me because if the leading edge of a pulse is the trigger, one can typically use any frequency. The length of time between the leading edge of the sent pulse and the leading edge of the returned pulse is pretty independent of frequency. What concerns me more is the depth of penetration before reflection and how smeared the return is based on ocean conditions like wave height, salinity, amount of foam, etc. These would all increase the uncertainty of measurement which never seems to be quoted. I could never find an uncertainty budget explicitly listed in all my research. I suspect, as in climate science, there are a lot of swag numbers based on assumptions only.
but good enough for government work?
The two LIGO observatories use laser light at a wavelength of 1064 nm to measure a displacement of less than one ten-thousandth the charge diameter of a proton, which equals about 0.00000000008 nm (8e^-11 nm).
Good enough for the most cutting-edge science.
Wait, you mean that measuring something in millimeters from 20000 miles away may not be the most accurate thing?
I’m shocked.
I don’t think any of the sea level satellites are anywhere near that far. More like 1300km.
Oh well, that’s alright then!<g>
Not just swells, but froth as well along with storm waves.
The disparity between NOAA satellite sea-level measurements and coastal tide gauges remains a concern. If the ocean rises a millimeter in the middle, should it not also rise a millimeter along the shore? And if it doesn’t, should not a hill or mountain of water build up in the middle after some time proving that Aristotle (water seeks its own level) was wrong? What could possibly account for such a thing? Perhaps Dr. Welch could do an exhaustive analysis of tide gauge data (and coastal land elevation data,) some of which goes back to before Abraham Lincoln was President, to find which measurement is wrong. One or the other data set has to be.
Tidal gauges show 1.5mm per year sea rise, the satellites show 3 to 4mm. But do the satellites take into account the rise and fall of the land which the tidal do. The west coast of Scotland is still rising due to the glacial ice melting at the end of the last ice age and the weight disappearing into the sea.
Which means the sea level relative to the land is – falling! As it is doing in many other places.
But forgetting “sea” level for a moment, the “land” level is rising elsewhere, too!
Mt Everest is rising at a rate of about 4 – 5 cm per annum, which rather makes sea level rises measured to 0.1 mm (less than the thickness of a human hair) quite meaningless.
Just more slop generated by the ignorant and gullible. What’s the point?
“The Bay of Fundy has the highest tides in the world, with a maximum height of over 50 feet (16 meters) and an average tidal cycle of about six hours and 13 minutes.”
“The lowest tides in the world are found at amphidromic points, which are locations with a tidal range of almost zero, like those in the enclosed Mediterranean, Baltic, and Caribbean Seas”
Sea levels are weird. Per examples 50 feet in Canada equals about 0 feet in Greece. Do you apply a total increase if one inch uniformly, or do a weighted average, or account for the non-spherical spinning earth, or….
Aristotle was in a bath tub.
Oceans are large.
Fluid dynamics calculate how fast the flow rate is.
Multiple influences.
So, no, if the ocean rises a millimeter in the middle, it will not immediately rise a millimeter along the shore and given fluid dynamics of ocean currents, it might be 0 at the shore.
And no, a mountain or hill of water will not build up in the middle. Too much going on.
And have they corrected for the 18.6-yearly Luna Nodal cycle?
The Dutch, those guys with half their country below sea level, seems to have found it.
Local Relative Sea Level
To determine the relevance of the nodal cycle at the Dutch coast, a spectral analysis was carried out on the yearly means of six main tidal gauges for the period 1890–2008. The data were corrected for atmospheric pressure variation using an inverse barometer correction. The spectral density shows a clear peak at the 18.6 -year period (Figure 1). The multiple linear regression yields a sea-level rise (b1) of 0.19 +/- 0.015 cm y-1 (95%), an amplitude (A) of 1.2 +/- 0.92 cm, and a phase (w) of -1.16 (with 1970 as 0), resulting in a peak in February 2005 (Figure 2). No significant acceleration (inclusion of b2) was found.
CONCLUSIONS
Coastal management requires estimates of the rate of sealevel rise. The trends found locally for the Dutch coast are the same as have been found in the past 50 years (Deltacommissie, 1960; Dillingh et al., 1993). Even though including the nodal cycle made it more likely that the high-level scenarios would become apparent in the observations, no acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise was found. The higher, recent rise (van den Hurk et al., 2007) coincides with the up phase of the nodal cycle. For the period 2005 through 2011, the Dutch mean sea-level is expected to drop because the lunar cycle is in the down phase. This shows the importance of including the 18.6-year cycle in regional sea-level estimates. Not doing so on a regional or local scale for decadal length projections leads to inaccuracies.
https://bioone.org/journals/journal-of-coastal-research/volume-28/issue-2/JCOASTRES-D-11-00169.1/The-Effect-of-the-186-Year-Lunar-Nodal-Cycle-on/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-11-00169.1.short
Linear trend lines on sinusoidal curves are very time dependent.
The NASA satalt SLR estimates are in my opinion worthless for climate purposes. I covered both Jason 3 and Sentinel 6 in previous posts here. NASA reports SLR in the tha of a millimeter, when the intrinsic accuracy is over 3 centimeters (3.8 for Jason 3, 3.4 for Sentinal 6.
Nils Axel Moerner computed SLR from about 70 long running tide gauges (minimum 60 years is needed to confidently overcome the ~19 year lunar nodal cycle) with a differential GPS land motion correction over at least 10 years either co-located or within 10 km. His answer was 2.2mm/yr and NO acceleration—very different than NASA.
Confidence in his result is gained by the fact that it exactly closes with the estimated sum of thermosteric rise (from ARGO) plus Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet loss. The ‘newest’ two NASA satalt estimates (Jason 3 and Sentinel 6) do NOT close by a factor of ~2!
Apples and oranges! The global mean SLR rise rate trend is reported to a stated value of ±0.4 mm/year. That is an entirely different thing than reporting the accuracy of individual measurements to ±3 cm.
That’s all right, then. Plus or minus the thickness of TWO human hairs!
Of course based on two assumptions –
Of course, ignorant and gullible suckers will believe anything.
What a joke!
Gee . . . again you are comparing a derived rate (mm/year) to a derived distance measurement (mm).
Now, you were saying something about ignorant . . .
Oh dear, are you really implying that I should have said “TWO human hairs – PER YEAR”?
I grovel in mortification. I stand corrected.
Indeed, and I’ll say it again –
“That’s all right, then. Plus or minus the thickness of TWO human hairs!
Of course based on two assumptions –
Of course, ignorant and gullible suckers will believe anything.”
You are obviously too ignorant and gullible to accept reality – preferring fantasy based on magical beliefs.
Yes. Averaging instrument accuracy can do that. LOL.
Hint:each individual measurement has an accuracy (uncertainty) of about 3Cm. you can’t average them.
Sounds suspiciously like how “climate scientists” abuse temperature data…
Fact: I never mentioned averaging individual distance measurements to derive a RATE of sea level rise over the 32 years, which NOAA has done using combined data from the TOPEX, JASON-series, and Sentinel-6MF orbiting spacecraft.
You never mention that you believe that adding CO2 to air makes thermometers hotter, either.
But you do.
Please review the techniques of measurement uncertainty. Accuracy is one essential category in an uncertainty budget. One does not reduce the final measurement uncertainty since the categories are always added. If just one category is ±3 cm, then any calculations using that measurement will also carry that uncertainty.
The figure of ±0.4 mm/year is derived from simply calculating the standard uncertainty of the mean using √n. The GUM JCGM 100:2008 says the following.
You need to tell us how the ±0.4 mm/year is calculated with a resource location. Otherwise, Rud has my vote.
Actually, no, I don’t need to do any such thing . . . the satellite data, reduction, graph, and reported average linear SLR rate and associated uncertainty come from NOAA, not me.
You obviously have mistaken me as being your lap dog.
I suggest you direct your above comments to NOAA, where I do believe they will give them all the attention that they deserve.
P.S. Thanks for mentioning how you vote, but should I care?
You made the assertion. You either believe it is true or you don’t. If you believe the uncertainty actually is ±0.4 mm/year then say so. If you don’t believe it is ±0.4 mm/year then say so. Just saying it’s from NOAA says nothing.
No, you completely misunderstand: I repeated the textual statement made on the face of the graph that NOAA presents at the website https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/socd/lsa/SeaLevelRise/LSA_SLR_timeseries.php which was cited in the first paragraph under Part 1 of the above article, and several additional times in the resulting train of comments.
To help you understand, here’s that NOAA text verbatim:
“trend: 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/year”
And to help even further, I have attached here a screen-grab of the reference NOAA graph so that you can that text is clearly seen on the face of the graph, near its top.
In my work I have differentiated between acceleration and “acceleration”. The former is a real acceleration but the latter is a misleading use of the term being twice the quadratic coefficient of a curve fitting exercise. The latter has been used by the such of Nerem et al in 2018 and then accepted as gospel to extrapolate for many decades that frightens all the kids on the planet. Having said that to say No acceleration must I feel have a small clarification. Nature never stands still so what would classify as a near zero acceleration. Most long range Tidal Gauges seem to hover at about 0.01 mm/year2 (about 10% of Nerem’s figure in 2018 although university of Colorado.s latest is slowly edging down) so I could live with this figure.
In some of my previous papers I have shown the plot of how the “acceleration” is changing as the period of calculation increases year on year. In this paper this has been applied to each sea area and in all cases the graph is like a under-damped oscillation. Wait around another 20, 30 or 40 years or so and I think the global Sea Level “acceleration” will be approaching much lower values more in line with Tidal Gauges.
Thanks for your comments.
First thing that has to be done is scientifically determine what, if any, are the sea level “climate effects.”
Next thing that has to be done is scientifically establish with clear and no uncertain terms what the optimum sea level is and the means to measure it that anyone can do.
There is no single optimum sea level. At Panama, the Pacific sea level is several inches higher than the Atlantic/Caribbean.
I put a dock in at my house on a creek off the middle Chesapeake Bay just north of the Rappahannock River 28 years ago. The land is supposed to be sinking somewhat. Figuring a 3.5mm annual change puts the supposed total water rise at just under 4″ since installation. We have about a 1.5′ lunar tidal range and we can have wind blown increases due to the orientation of the creek to the Bay.
Looking back at all the photos of the dock and shoreline over the years just doesn’t show that rise. The oysters attached to the rip rap are at the same level as they were in 1998. The water levels under the dock are certainly not 4″ higher. The king high tides still are under the stringers and when we do get tidal flooding due to a long NW fetch from a N’Easter the water may over wash the dock barely.. just like it always does.
Show me all the scatterplots to the hundredth of a mm, but my physical observations puts me in the skeptical category.
A tide reference mark was cut into rock in 1841 in Tasmania. That tide reference mark is STILL the same reference mark today.
The idiots that produce these wonderful graphs have no conception of a hundredth of a millimeter looks like.
Hand them a dollar bill, and ask them to slice it into hundredths of a millimeter slices. There should be more than ten.
Measure sea level anywhere, any time? The tide is generally changing the sea level faster than you can measure it, if you are seeking reasonable accuracy. Except at amphidromic points of course, where the tidal range may be zero!
You’d have to laugh, if it wasn’t so serious.<g>
In ‘climate change’, a wrong question is often asked to bias the answer in a most frightening manner
Sea level rise is such a question.
Erosion adds more land, ARABLE land, than sea level change removes: by at least 33,000 km2 in the past 30 years (https://www-nature-com.libproxy.wustl.edu/articles/nclimate3111.pdf).
That measurement is simple, accurate, and not difficult as is the case of sea level change in the midst of far larger diurnal to multidecadal sea level changes. The U. of Colorado 3 mm value is twice the Grace-Argo measurement of 1.4 mm/yr, so the best measurements do not agree.
One can take assurance that IF the sea is rising, then the interglacial is not over quite yet.
It is when the sea level STOPS rising that is the time to start worrying.
…..we collectively feed these people. Maybe we just decide to stop feeding them and let them die off? Would anybody notice? Would anybody care?
The world would certainly be a lot quieter and SAFER without them. !
Coincidentally….. Interesting post re SLR at NTZ
1880-2020 Trends In Ocean Heat Uptake, Thermal Expansion Challenge Human Forcing Claims
From the link: “Despite this dramatic increase in the assumed radiative forcing from CO2 emissions, the heat uptake (Fig. 1 and S6), thermal expansion (Fig. S17), and sea level rise rates (Fig. S17) were nearly as pronounced in 1910-1945 as they were from 1980-2010. In fact, there was a decline in the heat uptake, thermal expansion, and sea level rise rates from 1945 to 1975 despite the coincident sharp increase in CO2 emissions during this period.”
More indications that CO2 is not the control knob of the Earth’s temperatures.
The temperatures rose from 1910 to 1945 at the same rate as the temperatures rose from 1980 to the present, and both warm periods reached the same level of warming. Temperatures cooled from the 1940’s to the 1980’s. And sea level followed suit.
What is being described here is a “climate cycle” where the temperatures warm for a few decades and then they cool for a few decades and then the cyclical pattern repeats, and these movements have nothing to do with CO2 amounts. The sea levels follow the cycle.
Tom, during the day, the surface water heats, expands, and floats. During the night, the surface water cools, contracts, and sinks.
No global “ocean expansion” to be found. It doesn’t really matter, does it?
All this “sea level rise” is just to try to make people accept fiction as fact – that adding CO2 to air makes thermometers hotter!
These “climate scientists” (pseudoscientific shysters, if you prefer), assume that we are all more ignorant and gullible than they are. They’re right most of the time.
“All this “sea level rise” is just to try to make people accept fiction as fact”
I think so, too. The Climate Alarmists are taking a natural phenomenon: that ice melts when the temperatures warm, and this causes the sea levels to rise, and claiming that the sea level rise is evidence of CO2 warming.
Sea level rise is evidence that the poles are warming, but it is not evidence that CO2 is the cause of the warming.
If they tell us it is true, it must be true. Just ask them.
(Substitute Internet).
At the NOAA link under Part 1 of the above article: (https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/socd/lsa/SeaLevelRise/LSA_SLR_timeseries.php )
it is stated than an “inverse barometer” has been applied to the data, presumably to cancel out the variations in sea level measurements that are due to time-varying and geographically-differential atmospheric pressure variations.
Does anyone know if NOAA also adjusts those satellite measurements for time-varying and geographically-differential ocean thermal expansion variations, for say the first 100 m of ocean depth (say by using data from the widely dispersed Agro floats)?
Or is it generally acknowledged that sea level rise around the planet, as measured solely by satellites, is a combination of both global land ice melt plus the thermal expansion of the upper ocean surface?
If it’s indeed a combination of these two factors then one might expect to see a small sinusoidal variation in sea-level in the Northern Hemisphere that is 180 degrees out of phase with a sinusoidal variation in the Southern Hemisphere, both having a period of 365 days.
One source states that “More recent data indicate ocean thermal expansion is now contributing 42% of the total sea level rise.”
(see https://sky-lights.org/2018/10/15/qa-thermal-expansion-and-sea-level-rise-part-1/ )
“One source states that “More recent data indicate ocean thermal expansion is now contributing 42% of the total sea level rise.””
100% – 42% = 58%
58% of 3.2mm/yr = 1.8 – 1.9mm/yr which is about what the average tide gauge is.
bnice,
Have you ever seen a credible math equation that related the ambient temperature (however defined) to the measured change on sea level (however defined)?
It is my suspicion that other factors such as movement of ocean basin walls, big river delta sedimentation etc add so much noise to the systems that no clear signal remains to link T to level change.
Without such an equation, it is pointless to assert that measured sea level change at the present time (as opposed to long term historical reconstructions) is caused by temperature change such as global warming.
Geoff S
Agreeing with sherro01- I do believe SLR can be measured in various ways, I don’t believe it can be attributed to specific causes without a time machine.
With or without a time machine.
And, why, exactly don’t the tide gauges measure the total effect of BOTH seawater thermal expansion and land ice melt???
Don’t you know? Why can’t you find out for yourself?
Is it due to stupidity, or do you suffer from some learning disability?
Duhhhh . . . it appears you simply didn’t understand bnice2000’s comment to which I replied. Here it is again for you to ponder and to see if you can possibly figure out the reason for my question:
“One source states that ‘More recent data indicate ocean thermal expansion is now contributing 42% of the total sea level rise’.”
“100% – 42% = 58%
“58% of 3.2mm/yr = 1.8 – 1.9mm/yr which is about what the average tide gauge is.”
But please don’t bust a blood vessel thinking about it.
You demanded an answer, emphasising your demand with two superfluous question marks, as follows –
He can’t help your inability to overcome your ignorance and gullibility. Tide gauges would measure tides, I suppose. Not “seawater thermal expansion” or “land ice melt”. Otherwise you wouldn’t call them tide gauges, would you?
Maybe you want people to accept a redefinition of “tide gauges” to mean “global sea levels measuring devices”.
Just like some ignorant and gullible cultists refer to “slow cooling” as “heating”. Or redefining thermometric degrees of hotness as Watts per square meter!
Keep the laughs coming.
A quick Web search found this website to help you out
https://science.nasa.gov/kids/earth/how-do-we-measure-sea-level
And this this text from it (my bold emphasis added):
“There are two main ways that sea level is measured. Local sea levels are often measured by instruments called tide gauges. These measure changes in sea level compared to the land next to it. They are very accurate, but are limited to that specific location . . .”
And, yes, to the extent that tide gauges are located around the Earth, as a collective set of instruments they do measure global sea level rise.
Sea level rises, and falls, in a 12 hour odd cycle. Clearly the morons working for NOAA are too stupid to figure this out.
Perhaps the “morons” (your word) at NOAA know that averaging data over periods of 24 hours or more serve to cancel out the variations that occur in a 12 hour or so cycle period.
ROTFL!
Clearly they don’t, otherwise they would not keep screeching about catastrophic sea level rise like morons. And yes, I roll on the floor laughing at morons who keep screeching catastrophic climate catastrophe horse shyte. As I recall you cemented your spot on that roster a couple of weeks ago, you don’t have keep proving you belong on everyone’s point and laugh list.
So tell me, how did they average prior sea levels more than 8848 meters above the present one (evidenced by marine fossils on Mt Everest) to come up with sea levels more than 10000 meters below the present (as evidenced by fossil fuels derived from land based plant matter)?
You really are ignorant and gullible, aren’t you? That’s why you appear on many “point and laugh” lists. Not on mine – I just snigger derisively. I’ll apologise in advance if you choose to feel insulted, offended, or upset. You’ll probably blame me for being unable to control your emotions. [derisive snigger]<g>
Simple: the data under discussion in this thread is the SLR data obtained from orbiting satellites specifically designed (i.e., carrying scientific instruments) to do such (see https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/socd/lsa/SeaLevelRise/LSA_SLR_timeseries.php , referenced the above article in the first paragraph under Part 1). You apparently don’t understand that such data has only been collected and analyzed since 1993, well after the fossils to which you refer were laid down and subsequent land uplift and subsidence occurred.
I respectfully decline to educate you further, despite your request.
We all know the moon influences the oceans, a phenomenon called tides, due to gravitational effects.
We all know the sun controls most of the earth orbit due to gravitational effects.
The balance of the earth orbit is due to alignment of other planets, a phenomenon known as the Barycenter.
So, it is obvious tidal effects will be greatest with the moon aligned between the earth and the sun and lesser when the earth is aligned between the moon and the sun.
One has to wonder how the tidal effects of celestial alignments affect the tidal gage readings over the long haul. Seems there should be a sinusoidal or multiple signals present in the data.
This article seems to indicate that speculation is not out in the Oort Cloud.
“So, it is obvious tidal effects will be greatest with the moon aligned between the earth and the sun and lesser when the earth is aligned between the moon and the sun.”
What seems “obvious” is often not reality (need I mention “the flat Earth”?):
Spring tides occur when the gravity of the sun and moon work together on the earth. So spring tides have the greatest tidal range and occur when the moon is between the sun and the earth AND when the earth is between the sun and the moon.
When the moon is aligned with the Sun-Earth vector but at greater radius from the Sun than is the Earth, it creates as much of an aligned gravity gradient as it does when is it aligned between the Sun and the Earth.
See this Facebook post for a more detailed explanation:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/dullmensclub/permalink/1900114253978440/
I was not talking about tidal range.
While I could possibly have done a better explanation, I was focused on the high tide effects on ocean surface measurements and in particularly that there are multiple sinusoidal rhythms involved.
It also matters planetary tilt and precession, neither of which I addressed since my focus was on rhythms.
If I were able to edit the post:
“and somewhat lesser when the earth is aligned between the moon and the sun.”
With the intent to mean somewhat lesser that the peak that occurs with the moon aligned between the earth and the sun.
My post was not as well written as it should have been and I thank you for bringing attention to this.
versus
OK, got it. /sarc
And this proof of your residency upon the Universal Point and Laugh list was entirely unneeded. We are all laughing at you already.
Personally, I am glad to know that I bring humor to minds below a certain level of IQ. It may indeed be a corporal work of mercy to do such.
We all need some laughter in our lives!
Get back to me when you want to discuss topics of scientific importance with meaningful points.
I’ll make it easy for you. There is nothing wrong with Earth’s climate. It changes constantly, humans are not causing it to change and cannot stop it from changing. Your continuous screeching about humans being evil and destroying the climate is beyond comical and makes you look like an idiot. Good job, buddy.
For the record, I have never said, posted, or even implied such.
I challenge you to find and specifically refer to one WUWT comment (not fabricated by you or others)—or even such a comment in one of my scientific publications—where I’ve done what you claim.
There.
I ain’t looking for any crap you have spewed, whiny leftist puke. Go find it yourself. Meanwhile, in spite of any thing you caterwaul, there is nothing wrong with the climate or the environment and gas, coal, oil, hydro and nuclear are the only “renewable” sources of power available to the human race. Blow me, Whinerella.
Your ad hominem (look it up) response was pretty much along the lines that I expected as a result of you being cornered.
“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”
— frequently misattributed to Socrates
Cornered? By a leftard like you? Keep spewing your anti-human crap, it is all you got.
Again, as expected.
Yep, you never fail to blame humans for what nature does. So typical.
See? You already proved you belong on everyone’s point and laugh list, was totally unnecessary for you to do so twice.
But he did it anyway – ignorance and gullibility, or just stupidity?
With the “doomcryer” crowd it is a combination of the three. And since all their “we’re all gonna die in a fiery flood” have proven to be nothing other than lies they just screech them louder. Like brain damaged toddlers screaming at the sky.
“You already proved you belong on everyone’s point and laugh list . . .”
Personally, I am glad to know that I bring humor to minds below a certain level of IQ. It may indeed be a corporal work of mercy to do such.
We all need some laughter in our lives!
Get back to me when you want to discuss topics of scientific importance with meaningful points.
But perhaps it was totally unnecessary for me to offer these comments twice?
You certainly provide the fuel to maximise laughter in those not as ignorant and gullible as yourself.
Keep believing that adding CO2 to air makes thermometers hotter!
Nothing wrong with laughter, or in my case, derisive sniggering.
Based on chaotic orbits, and Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation, tides are chaotic in nature, and not amenable to precise prediction.
NOAA would seem to support me, and states for one location –
Pretty rubbish, but they just look at the past, and presume the future will obey the past.
About as accurate as a smart 12 year old with a ruler and pencil.
Well, sort of.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stability_of_the_Solar_System (my bold emphasis added) :
“The stability of the Solar System is a subject of much inquiry in astronomy. Though the planets have historically been stable as observed, and will be in the “short” term, their weak gravitational effects on one another can add up in ways that are not predictable by any simple means.
“For this reason (among others), the Solar System is chaotic in the technical sense defined by mathematical chaos theory, and that chaotic behavior degrades even the most precise long-term numerical or analytic models for the orbital motion in the Solar System, so they cannot be valid beyond more than a few tens of millions of years into the past or future – about 1% its present age.”
Hmmm . . . solar system planetary orbits stable and predictable over a “few tens of millions of years” . . . that’s good enough for me and my great-grandchildren.
At least the Wikipedia editor grudgingly accepts the existence of chaos theory, even if he proceeds to totally ignore it, demonstrating his ignorance and gullibility. Even the IPCC reluctantly accepts that it is not possible to predict future climate states, due to chaos.
But once again, you refuse to accept that tides act chaotically. If you think that magic makes the tides rise and fall, good for you. I’m inclined to favour gravity, and the influence of celestial bodies on local ones.
All irrelevant, sea levels rise and fall, some places have more than two tides a day, some have less, or even none. You really have no idea why, have you? Most people don’t.
a lot of readings are out of whack. Look at Figure 9. Around 2010 there is a kink, where the linear approximation changes drastically. Can’t be due to ocean thermal and other inertia. How are those satellites calibrated and do they use the same correction factors. Can’t be, just they are different satellite sensors. Then, based on tidal gages NOAA the global change over the last century was 1.8 mm per year. The satellites have weird numbers ‘assigned’. Tidal gage measure directly -you cannot fool them.
All very amateurish and totally invalid.
Hi Thanks for your comments. You are one of the few who refer to my paper and are not just arguing amongst their selves!
I want to give you a detailed reply but have family arriving soon for a day visit so will have to do it later. I’m on UK Time. Watch this space.
I trust you enjoyed the family visit. Sorry for some grammatical errors, since I was hurried and did not read things over. I would like to add to the subject matter. Certainly the argument still stands that the sea level rise is significantly influenced from melting arctic, antarctic and Greenland’s ice caps. I have read the news of arctic and antarctic levels being much less than predicted. Remember, it was not long ago that nine volcanoes were discovered under the Antarctic, and lakes and connecting rivers may exist, all arising questions on the net melt effect. On Greenland it was discovered that meltwater is being re-frozen in the firn instead of making its way in riviulets. To what extent is certainly an unanswered question. I have not found an answer how ice can accumulate on top, which is evident by the 1940’s Mosquito planes now buried under 350 feet of ice, similarly in accumulation at the near Thule under-ice nuclear powered 1950’s fortress. It is hard to imagine that the earth’s constant heat emission and glacial movement somehow leave this accumulation on these archeological remnants. I asked several glaciologists who had no response. My point – we are still poking into fog on the ice melting science and conversely the effect on sea level.
Hi. First domestic matters. Family visits are a bit hard these days. We lost our only child to cancer 4 years ago and the visit was from our son-in-law and twelve-year-old twins. Also, I suffered a stroke last year and at 87 it is still affecting me. Old age isn’t for wimps.
I can’t say much concerning you comments on ice caps – out of my comfort zone of knowledge. My working life was mostly in structural (civil) engineering developing methods of analysis and applying these in the design and analysis of large structures such as Nuclear Power Station Containment Structures, Offshore Gravity Structures, Bridges etc although my first 3 years (1958 to 1961) were working on the Blue Streak Rocket. My interest in Sea Levels arose when Nerem et al published their 2018 paper and used some alarming methods – Quadratic Curve fitting, equating this to Acceleration and Extrapolating to the year 2100 resulting with pictures of the Statue of Liberty being up to her waist in water on the cover of National Geographic.
Your initial comments concerned figure 9. My equivalent to this, figure 10, acted as a check on my work but is essentially the same. As these refer to the Global Sea Levels it will best to first refer to the other 24 sub areas – some very large, others very, very small. These will not only be affected by the changes in sea levels but by any decadal oscillations present in that area. In the paper only two cases are shown in detail. The Yellow Sea as a series of figures (1 to 5 and 12 to14) with some references to the Indonesian Sea. The other, over 90%, of the figures appear in two of my Google Drive Files the file details appearing in the paper. Did you manage to download these? The Yellow Sea has a nearly 19-year cycle according to the curve fitting and spectral analysis shown in figures 3 and 4. On figure 12 (equivalent to figure 10) shows that each satellite linear fit follows its own path and in figure 13 the addition of a best fit curve shows why.
Over the full range of 24 sub seas there are many different forms and the equivalents of figure 10 show these. The period lengths and phase shifts are very instrumental in creating this range of forms. Note the fifth satellite (Sentinel 6MP) has only a short coverage so can be ignored.
Turning to the Global Sea Levels it is important to see that the satellite coverage is only 95% with much of the remaining 5% being part of the North Atlantic and Arctic Oceans. The subsequent graphs for the Global Levels are therefore affected by this and reflect what might be happening in the northern oceans. A 100% coverage may have a more linear form or one with a very small acceleration in line with the long term Tidal Gauges. The satellite coverage is only 33 years, and this can have a major impact. My paper https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/06/28/sea-level-rise-acceleration-an-alternative-hypothesis-part-2/ discusses this point. So, the Global Sea Levels is a special case but the form of figures 9 and 10 is mainly down to some very special conditions. Move the satellite reading periods on 5 years and the graph would have looked more like the other 24. The special conditions are that the first 2 satellites have roughly the same length and that they overlap each other at the first point of inflection on figure 11. Same for satellites 3 and 4.
I have 2 papers awaiting publication on WUWT that address this problem using several Tidal Gauges in the North Atlantic and Arctic Oceans – watch this space.
Hope this has cleared up some items and not introduced too many new problems. Figure 11 is very important in understanding why there is the “kink”.
I have been pondering the substantial difference between tidal gage and satellite measurements of SLR. In Dave Burton’s website he points to a presentation by Dr. Willi Soon, starting at minute 17. He states inexplicable corrections of raw satellite data and the drift calibration problems, as well as the coarseness of data. Very revealing. Personally I stick with tidal gage data.