Understanding Sea Level Rise

There has been some confusion about the human component of sea level rise, so I thought I would clear that up once and for all.

ScreenHunter_1695 Apr. 28 08.20

NASA scientists have also learned that CO2 turned John Cleese into a newt.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to Understanding Sea Level Rise

  1. gator69 says:

    Holy See rise, Badmann!

  2. Steve Case says:

    An honest evaluation of sea level rise from tide gauge data yields a rate of a little over 2 mm/yr for the last 30 years. It also turns up an acceleration of about 0.02 mm/yr². IF that were to remain constant, it would result in a rate of almost 4 mm/yr by 2100 and a total rise of about ten inches.

    The satellite data which doesn’t appear to be honest as the overall rate has been consistently bumped up over the last ten years stands at 3.2 mm/yr or 2.9 mm/yr if you disregard the GIA bump-up. However since 1992 the satellite record displays a negative acceleration rate of about -0.05 mm/yr². IF that were to remain constant sea level would rise no more than four inches by 2080 and then begin to decline.

    • gator69 says:

      Faced with the embarrassing fact that sea level is not rising nearly as much as has been predicted, the University of Colorado’s NASA-funded Sea Level Research Group has announced it will begin adding a nonexistent 0.3 millimeters per year to its Global Mean Sea Level Time Series. As a result, alarmists will be able to present sea level charts asserting an accelerating rise in sea level that is not occurring in the real world.

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/05/11/nasa-funded-group-doctors-sea-level-data/

      • Steve Case says:

        alarmists will be able to present sea level charts asserting an accelerating rise in sea level that is not occurring in the real world.
        No they can’t. The CU Data
        http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2015_rel1/sl_ns_global.txt
        can be used to show acceleration:
        The rate from 2003.9544 26.978 to 2014.9494 70.758 is 2.97 mm/yr
        and the rate from 1992.9595 -5.774 is 3.54 mm/yr
        It follows that (2.97 mm/yr – 3.54 mm/yr) ÷ 11 yrs = (-0.05 mm/yr²)

        The alarmists can assert all they want, but as I’ve shown, and as anyone with a high school education and an Excel spreadsheet can figure out, the accelertion rate according to the satellites since 1992 is negative.

        • darrylb says:

          Steve, Good, accurate and important point—and as you said anyone with
          high school education and maybe not necessarily a an Excel spreadsheet.

          For us old guys who used slide rules, and kept the decimal floating in our head.
          I think that indoctrination into arithmetic/ math has been a life long benefit. It prevents
          one from getting fooled easily.

        • gator69 says:

          Steve, Steve, Steve, we should all know by now that the alarmists can “assert” anything they like, as they do so on an hourly basis. 😉

        • darrylb says:

          Hey Gator, that is true, BUT
          that is why we must make sure we continually arm ourselves with
          as much knowledge as possible, give caveats when needed and eventually
          the tide will turn.
          The alarmist position did not happen overnight and neither will the tide change in the
          other direction quickly.

          Here, I will state where I think the science (only the science) really is.

          There may be some CO2 caused warming, but much smaller than models show, if any at all. Natural changes are the main cause.

          Also, it is rarely brought up that CO2, as Roy Spencer states, is an elixer of life.
          It would seem the benefits far out weigh any possible negative effect if any.

        • gator69 says:

          I was a climatology student right after the ice age scare, and before the great global warming swindle. CO2 does have a warming effect, but additional CO2 does not have a detectable effect at current levels.

        • darrylb says:

          The narrative of a 3.0 transient climate response for a doubling of CO2 just will not go away.It was kind of an average of all models.

          Gator, even the alarmists state, but it is not often considered that the temperature response to CO2 increase is not linear. but is rather to a doubling, assumed to be doubling from anyone point.

        • gator69 says:

          Their models incoporate positive feedback loops, they know that CO2 warming is logarithmic.

  3. mkelly says:

    NASA scientists have also learned that CO2 turned John Cleese into a newt.

    No they didn’t.

  4. Sea level rise on this planet is 1.41 mm per year and is accelerating at 0.00000 %

    http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=1612340

    What continent is Hawaii on?

    • darrylb says:

      Morgan, you are correct in that data for Hawaii
      The difficult thing about sea level rise calculation is the fact that it is much different in various locations.

      Because most land is on plates kind of floating on molten material. some areas are rising and some are falling, that is in some areas there is larger sea rise and in some the sea is sinking.

      There are also atolls.that form and then disappear. Also changes in ocean currents
      cause tides to be higher or lower in some locations.

      All of this is why, when data is cherry picked by alarmists, those of us who keep getting more skeptical keep getting more and more and more skeptical and upset if decisions effecting the entire planet.are based on false narratives.

    • DD More says:

      Hawaii is currently over a hot spot bump. Get a good undersea floor map and you will see a line of little spikes leading off to the NW, all the way to the Pacific Plate subduction zone. The big island is currently going up or just at the top of the bump.

      • Gail Combs says:

        The south-eastern Vietnamese coast is tectonically stable.
        Mid to late Holocene sea-level reconstruction of Southeast Vietnam using beachrock and beach-ridge deposits

        ….backshore deposits along the tectonically stable south-eastern Vietnamese coast document Holocene sea level changes…..reconstructed for the last 8000 years….The rates of sea-level rise decreased sharply after the rapid early Holocene rise and stabilized at a rate of 4.5 mm/year between 8.0 and 6.9 ka. Southeast Vietnam beachrocks reveal that the mid-Holocene sea-level highstand slightly above + 1.4 m was reached between 6.7 and 5.0 ka, with a peak value close to + 1.5 m around 6.0 ka. This highstand is further limited by a backshore and beachridge deposit that marks the maximum springtide sea-level just below the base of the overlying beach ridge. After 5.0 ka sea level dropped below + 1.4 m and fell almost linearly at a rate of 0.24 mm/year until 0.63 ka and + 0.2 m as evidenced by the youngest beachrocks.….
        http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113001859

        Of course to get around this evidence (and get the paper published) Karl Stattegger et al had to add this “get around the evidence” paragraph:

        The Holocene sea-level fluctuations observed in Southeast Vietnam resulted from eustatic and isostatic processes. The sea-level rise up to the mid-Holocene highstand was provoked by the last melting phase of glacial polar ice-sheets. The sea-level drop after the mid-Holocene highstand was induced by the isostatic processes of continental levering with an uplift of continents in low latitudes and depression of adjacent flooded continental shelf areas and Equatorial Ocean Siphoning transferring oceanic waters from low latitudes to the increasing volume of oceanic basins in higher latitudes. The regional expression in terms of magnitude and timing of relative sea-level change might contribute to validation of geophysical model simulations.

        However they do put in the highlights”

        Highlights
        • Comprehensive mid to late Holocene sea-level record of South Vietnam
        • Mid-Holocene sea-level highstand position between + 1.4 and + 1.6 m, 6700–5000 years BP
        Slight sea-level drop at an average rate of 0.25 mm/year after 5000 years BP

        Back to Hawaii:
        Sea-level highstand recorded in Holocene shoreline deposits on Oahu, Hawaii

        Unconsolidated carbonate sands and cobbles on Kapapa Island, windward Oahu, are 1.4-2.8 (+ or – 0.25) m above present mean sea level (msl)…we interpret the deposit to be a fossil beach or shoreline representing a highstand of relative sea level during middle to late Holocene time. Calibrated radiocarbon dates of coral and mollusc samples, and a consideration of the effect of wave energy setup, indicate that paleo-msl was at least 1.6 (+ or – 0.45) m above present msl prior to 3889-3665 cal. yr B.P, possibly as early as 5532-5294 cal. yr B.P., and lasted until at least 2239-1940 cal. yr B.P

      • The Hawaiian Islands take millions of years to pass over the hot spot, that spot has been there for millions of years and the motion of each island is 10000000000 times too slow to be relevant to any argument you might be concocting as to why it can’t be a reliable place to measure accurate sea level rise over the course of a century. Your argument is just dumb. I am totally sick of stupid arguments, I really can’t take it anymore.

  5. Jason Calley says:

    CO2 may have turned Cleese into a newt, but too bad CO2 could never turn Hansen into a Newton.

    • gator69 says:

      The witches brew is C02 + government funding. It can turn any scientist, no matter their field of expertise, into grantologists. It can also turn politicians into a Newt…

  6. JeffK says:

    Only the most gullible Dem voters believe sea levels rising in Biscayne Bay is caused by fossil fuels or “global warming.” Why aren’t sea levels rising on the ocean side of Miami Beach, or other parts of Florida at higher rates than normal, then? Rates are the same since the last ice age, except where groundwater use is high and the ground sinks, making sea levels rise faster in some locales everywhere.
    A: Biscayne Bay is at the juncture of gov’t meddling between canals carved to bring water from Lake Okeechobee, artificial islands carved for shipping channels and ports in Miami, and the Intracoastal Waterway to increase waterfront property values (and local tax revenues) right there. Yes, the federal Army Corps of Engineers is why, not the Koch Bros. But you can’t get a gov’t funded “climate change” grant if your science blames the gov’t. And Obama says the private sector “didn’t build that” — except in Marco Rubio’s back yard it must be the Koch’s fault.
    Sea levels rise rates are the same along the ocean side, including Pacific coast, and other natural causes affect sea levels all over the world (in Scandinavia the sea level has been FALLING
    for ages, even though it’s next to the “melting” Arctic and Greenland ice caps, due to natural fluctuations in the Earth’s crust between ice ages. Conversely, sea levels rise more where the crust sinks more such as along US mid-Atlantic, when last ice age recedes, until next one begins.

  7. Gail Combs says:

    Steve is using a graph of sea level from WIKI. One problem is the sea level data is not raw data but adjusted data.

    WIKI
    This figure shows changes in sea level during the Holocene, the time following the end of the most recent glacial period, based on data from Fleming et al. 1998, Fleming 2000, & Milne et al. 2005. These papers collected data from various reports and adjusted them for subsequent vertical geologic motions, primarily those associated with post-glacial continental and hydroisostatic rebound….

    If you look at this graph, you see that if you remove the red outlier the sea level has fallen over the last two thousand years. The red outlier is attributed to Santa Catarina.

    Looking for a sea level study done in Santa Catarina, I found this paper:

    Relative sea-level changes in the last 5500 years in southern Brazil žLaguna–Imbituba region, Santa Catarina State / based on vermetid 14C ages
    Rodolfo J. Anguloa,), Paulo C.F. Giannini b,1, Kenitiro Suguio Luiz C.R. Pessenda

    December 1998
    Abstract
    Twenty-six new radiocarbon dates from vermetid shells collected in the southernmost sector of the Brazilian rocky coast presented dates ranging from 5410 +/- 80 to 190 +/- 65 years B.P., with associated paleosea levels varying from +2.10 m to +0.20 m above present sea level. The overall suggested trend of the relative sea level ŽRSL., declining until at least 190 years B.P., is somewhat contradictory to a proposed RSL rise in the last 1000 years in southern Brazil. The data also seem to undermine a more widely accepted RSL trend that suggests that at least two negative RSL oscillations occurred between 4100 and 3800 years B.P. and between 3000 and 2700 years B.P. The maximum elevation of the RSL in the Holocene in southern Brazil was possibly lower than that observed in most of the Brazilian eastern coast. Discrepancies between ancient sea levels of similar ages are attributed to coincidental methodological problems, to imprecisions in determining past relative sea levels and to possible changes in the geomorphology and wave climate close to shore during the last 5000 years. A general trend of increasing d18 O with a reduction in age in the studied samples may suggest a gradual reduction of water temperature in the region during the same period.
    http://apostilas.cena.usp.br/moodle/pessenda/periodicos/internacionais/Angulo%20et%20al.,%201999.pdf

    The next question is Brazil tectonically stable?

    The Brazilian Shield is tectonically stable. The last orogenic cycle to affect it occurred > 600 million years ago.

    Any uplift is extremely slow.

    Cyclic sedimentation in Brazilian caves: Mechanisms and palaeoenvironmental significance
    Augusto S. Auler; Peter L. Smart; Xianfeng Wang; Luís B. Piló; R. Lawrence Edwards; Hai Cheng

    Abstract
    Caves associated with doline slopes in the tectonically stable area of eastern Brazil display remarkable sequences of clastic sediment intercalated with calcite layers….. Due to the low rates of denudation and isostatic rebound inherent to tectonically stable areas, cave passages will remain within the range of sediment infill and erosion for a much longer time than in tectonically active areas spanning, in average, at least three full glacial-interglacial cycles. As uplift proceeds, cave passages will be decoupled from the doline bottom and no longer will be affected by erosion or infilling episodes. Sediment filled passages in many caves in the Lagoa Santa region are relict features that display ancient clastic and chemical precipitation. The three processes described above have occurred throughout the life history of the caves, resulting in complex sediment assemblages that can, however, show significant intra- and inter-site variations.
    http://experts.umn.edu/pubDetail.asp?t=pm&id=61849149977&n=Hai+Cheng&u_id=3388&oe_id=1&o_id=5

    Campo Formoso is in the state of Bahia in the North-East region of Brazil. Lagoa Santa is in the mid region inland and a bit north ofRio de Janeiro on the east coast and Santa Catarina is on the coast south of Lagoa Santa.

    The second problem is the earth has been cooling since the Holocene optimum, glaciers have re-established and the sea level has really FALLEN.

    <b.TEN STUDIES PROVING SEA LEVEL IS NOT RISING:
    https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/03/08/the-cant-find-the-missing-water-and-it-is-a-travesty-that-they-cant/#comment-499786

    Sea level rise is just another Warmist lie based on cherry picking the time frame and the studies used.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Now, back to satellite altimetry, which shows the water, not just the coasts, but in the whole of the ocean. And you measure it by satellite. From 1992 to 2002, [the graph of the sea level] was a straight line, variability along a straight line, but absolutely no trend whatsoever. We could see those spikes: a very rapid rise, but then in half a year, they fall back again. But absolutely no trend, and to have a sea-level rise, you need a trend. Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC’s] publications, in their website, was a straight line—suddenly it changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year, the same as from the tide gauge. And that didn’t look so nice. It looked as though they had recorded something; but they hadn’t recorded anything. It was the original one which they had suddenly twisted up, because they entered a “correction factor,” which they took from the tide gauge. So it was not a measured thing, but a figure introduced from outside. I accused them of this at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow— I said you have introduced factors from outside; it’s not a measurement. It looks like it is measured from the satellite, but you don’t say what really happened. And they answered, that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have gotten any trend!

      Click to access NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf

    • gator69 says:

      One problem is the sea level data is not raw data but adjusted data.

      Once data has been adjusted, it is no longer data, it is an artifact of analysis.

      The grantologists point to artifacts, and claim it as data.

      da·ta ˈdadə,ˈdādə/ noun
      1- facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis.

      ar·ti·fact ˈärdəfakt/ noun
      1- an object made by a human being…

      • Gail Combs says:

        I strongly agree with you Gator. With sea level rise, if the area is not tectonically stable all you can do is guess.

        • spangled drongo says:

          Gail and Gator, living in a particularly tectonically stable part of the world I can say that over the last 70 years, benchmarks of mine that are accurate to at least an inch, show no SLR but in fact some fall [up to 12 inches in some cases].

          I’m using highest astronomical tides at normal barometric pressure which show practical SLR, not tide gauges which show changes in MSL.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Thank you for some independent validation.

          The amount of lying and adjusting and covering up of data is truly amazing! —A huge effort— no wonder so many billions have been spent bribing scientists to lie. It is also sickenning and frightening. How much else has been deliberately falsified? Makes you think we are living in George Orwell’s 1984.

          The temperature record across the world has been corrupted as has been show by Tony and others.

          Dr Zbigniew Jaworowsk has shown how the CO2 record has been corrupted.

          The sea level records have been corrupted.

          Even the plant biology of CO2 has been corrupted to bring it in line with the corrupted ice core data. I used to have a link, since removed from the internet.

          From my old notes:
          The interesting thing is the revisionism at work. The ice core data shows time periods of CO2 = 180 PPM yet the C3 plants did not all die out.

          In my old notes from ~ 2007 I found “ under 200 pm CO2 trees starve” http://biblioteca.universia.net/ficha.do?id=912067
          but the link no longer works… Now all the searches turn up papers showing 180 ppm or lower….HMMMmmmm

          I then check a couple of studies in 2010 and found the 180 -200 ppm CO2 for trees is now based on “models” derived from the ice cores. GRRRrrrr

          Here is an example of a recent search (2011):. Notice the obvious answer to the question posed, that the ice core data is flawed as Dr Zbigniew Jaworowski stated** is never even entertained as a possibility.

          Plant responses to low [CO2] of the past
          …Studies addressing the effects of low [CO2] on plants are also fundamental for understanding plant evolution in response to changes in resource availability through time –primarily since changing [CO2] has been shown to have major implications for plant fitness (Ward et al., 2000).

          Modern plants grown at low [CO2] (150–200 ppm) exhibit highly compromised survival (Ward & Kelly, 2004) and reproduction (Dippery et al., 1995) at conditions that occurred only 18 000–20 000 yr ago. Such findings beg the question of how glacial plants survived during low-[CO2] periods, especially considering the lack of evidence for plant extinctions during these times. Furthermore, past work has demonstrated that low [CO2] has the potential to act as a strong selective agent on plants, and therefore evolutionary responses may have ameliorated some of the negative effects of low [CO2] in the past (Ward et al., 2000).

          ** FALSE LOW PRE-INDUSTRIAL CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE

          Determinations of CO2 in polar ice cores are commonly used for estimations of the pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric levels. Perusal of these determinations convinced me that glaciological studies are not able to provide a reliable reconstruction of CO2 concentrations in the ancient atmosphere. This is because the ice cores do not fulfill the essential closed system criteria. One of them is a lack of liquid water in ice, which could dramatically change the chemical composition the air bubbles trapped between the ice crystals. This criterion, is not met, as even the coldest Antarctic ice (down to –73oC) contains liquid water[2]. More than 20 physico-chemical processes, mostly related to the presence of liquid water, contribute to the alteration of the original chemical composition of the air inclusions in polar ice[3]. http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/

          ………

          On the corruption of the CO2 in the Ice core data:
          What is really really interesting is Barrow 1947-1948 data at 420 ppm! (average of 330 samples) It is noted that the Keeling samples (1972 to 2004) are transported from Barrow Alaska to California before they are analysed. http://www.biokurs.de/eike/daten/leiden26607/leiden6e.htm

          Dr. Jaworowski also cites older studies of ice cores using the entire sample (crushing the ice) where the readings are in the 500 ppm to 700 ppm range.

          Dr.Ball has an article Why and How the IPCC Demonized CO2 with Manufactured Information

          Click to access igs_journal_vol21_issue085_pg291-300.pdf


          CO2 in Natural Ice
          Stauffer, B | Berner, W

          Symposium on the Physics and Chemistry of Ice; Proceedings of the Third International Symposium, Cambridge (England) September 12-16, 1977. Journal of Glaciology, Vol. 21, No. 85, p 291-300, 1978. 3 fig, 5 tab, 18 ref.
          Natural ice contains approximately 100 ppm (by weight) of enclosed air. This air is mainly located in bubbles. Carbon dioxide is an exception. The fraction of CO2 present in bubbles was estimated to be only about 20%. The remaining part is dissolved in the ice. Measurements of the CO2 content of ice samples from temperate and cold glacier ice as well as of freshly fallen snow and of a laboratory-grown single crystal were presented. It is probable that a local equilibrium is reached between the CO2 dissolved in the ice and the CO2 of the surroundings and of the air bubbles. The CO2 content of ancient air is directly preserved neither in the total CO2 concentration nor in the CO2 concentration in the bubbles. Possibly the CO2 content of ancient air may at least be estimated if the solubility and the diffusion constant of CO2 in ice are known as a function of temperature. (See also W79-09342) (Humphreys-ISWS)

          Statement of Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski
          Chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection
          Warsaw, Poland
          Figures 1A and 1B

          The data from shallow ice cores, such as those from Siple, Antarctica[5, 6], are widely used as a proof of man-made increase of CO2 content in the global atmosphere, notably by IPCC[7]. These data show a clear inverse correlation between the decreasing CO2 concentrations, and the load-pressure increasing with depth (Figure 1 A). The problem with Siple data (and with other shallow cores) is that the CO2 concentration found in pre-industrial ice from a depth of 68 meters (i.e. above the depth of clathrate formation) was “too high”. This ice was deposited in 1890 AD, and the CO2 concentration was 328 ppmv, not about 290 ppmv, as needed by man-made warming hypothesis. The CO2 atmospheric concentration of about 328 ppmv was measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii as later as in 1973[8], i.e. 83 years after the ice was deposited at Siple.

          Truly sickening when you think of the number of corrupted scientists.

        • Robertv says:

          ‘How much else has been deliberately falsified? Makes you think we are living in George Orwell’s 1984.’

          If I can’t trust you with my ex girlfriend I can’t trust you with my children.

  8. John Smith says:

    ABSTRACT: 20th century accumulated greenhouse gasses due the the release of sequestered carbon dioxide as a result of anthropogenic activity, has caused a dangerous rise in sea level in the United Kingdom. A small but measurable trend in adaptive specie modification has been observed in certain English population subgroups (excepting the Welsh and Scots since they are incapable of evolving). Amphibian attributes such as webbed digits and primitive gill structures are present in pub surveys and in the House of Commons. John Cleese has recently asserted the he has known he was a newt since childhood and will begin surgical transition to full newthood with the help of doctors at the NHS. We assert that this phenomenon is caused by human induced climate change. We believe the incidences of newtism will continue to increase if more extreme carbon dioxide mitigation polices are not adopted in the near future.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s