“As the sea levels have been oscillating, but not accelerating, in the long-term-trend tide gauges of Japan since the start of the 20th century, the same as all the other long-term-trend tide gauges of the world, it is increasingly unacceptable to base coastal management on alarmist predictions that are not supported by measurements.” – Parker, 2019
Image Source: Parker, 2019
I. A Pacific Ocean-induced sea level rise catastrophe by 2100?
The Pacific Ocean encompasses more than half of the Earth’s water volume.
Consequently, measured relative sea level trends in Pacific Ocean have important implications in analyzing the climate-modeled projections of future sea level rise.
Anywhere from about an additional meter (IPCC, 2013) to multiple meters (Garner et al., 2017; University of Hawaii, 2018) of sea level rise by 2100 is assumed in climate modeling due primarily to the exponential rise in anthropogenic CO2 emissions since the late 19th century.
To achieve these catastrophic sea level rise amplitudes, however, both the rate of increase and overall acceleration will need to be elevated dramatically – by more than an order of magnitude – from that which has been observed in the last century.
• “Our analyses do not indicate acceleration in sea level in U.S. tide gauge records during the 20th century. Instead, for each time period we consider, the records show small decelerations that are consistent with a number of earlier studies of worldwide-gauge records. The decelerations that we obtain are opposite in sign and one to two orders of magnitude less than the +0.07 to + 0.28mm/yr accelerations that are required to reach sea levels predicted for 2100 by Vermeer and Rahmsdorf (2009), Jevrejeva, Moore, and Grinsted (2010), and Grinsted, Moore, and Jevrejeva (2010). Bindoff et al. (2007) note an increase in worldwide temperature from1906 to 2005 of 0.74 C. It is essential that investigations continue to address why this worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration of global sea level over the past 100 years, and indeed why global sea level has possibly decelerated for at least the last 80 years.” (Houston and Dean, 2011)
II. Due to natural variability, relative sea level changes may only be gauged with long-term records
Pacific tide gauges sited in the same location for a century or longer (with consistent rates of subsidence or uplift) can qualitatively assess the overall rate or acceleration of sea level changes.
Shorter-term (less than 80 years) measurements may easily compromise the accurate computation of rate or acceleration trends due especially to the prominence of 60-year cycles of natural origin (Chambers et al., 2012).
Separating an alleged anthropogenically-forced sea level rise trend from natural variability has been a well-documented problem that has been intensively debated in the scientific literature.
• “Global sea levels have been rising through the past century and are projected to rise at an accelerated rate throughout the 21st century. This has motivated a number of authors to search for already existing accelerations in observations, which would be, if present, vital for coastal protection planning purposes. No scientific consensus has been reached yet as to how a possible acceleration could be separated from intrinsic climate variability in sea level records. This has led to an intensive debate on its existence and, if absent, also on the general validity of current future projections.” (Visser et al., 2015)
• “Previous research has shown that sea-level acceleration determined from individual tide gauge records has remarkably large scatter as record lengths decrease due to decadal variations in sea level. We extend previous data sets to the present time and find even greater acceleration scatter. Using analytic solutions, sinusoidal oscillations with amplitudes and periods of typical decadal variations are shown to basically account for the relationship between record length and both acceleration and trend difference. Data show that decadal variations will obscure estimates of underlying accelerations if record lengths of individual gauges are not greater than at least 75 years. Although worldwide data are less affected by decadal variations than individual gauge data, decadal variations still significantly affect estimates of underlying accelerations, in particular for record lengths less than about 60 years. We give two examples of recent studies that use record lengths of about 30 to 60 years to determine acceleration or related trend difference. Previous authors dismissed the importance of decadal variations on their results and, as a result, reached invalid conclusions.” (Houston and Dean, 2013)
• “A proper coastal management requires an accurate estimation of sea level trends locally and globally. It is claimed that the sea levels are rising following an exponential growth since the 1990s, and because of that coastal communities are facing huge challenges. Many local governments throughout Australia, including those on the coast, have responded to the various warnings about changes in climate and increases in sea levels by undertaking detailed climate change risk management exercises. … It is shown here that the exponential growth claim is not supported by any measurement of enough length and quality when properly analysed. The tide gauge results do not support the exponential growth theory. The projections by the relevant state bodies should therefore be revised by considering the measurements and not the models to compute the future sea level rises for the next 30 years following the same trend experienced over the last 30 years.” (Parker et al., 2013)
III. Long-term negative Pacific Ocean sea level rise rates and acceleration belie a human influence
It has already been suggested that an anthropogenic fingerprint has yet to be detected in Pacific Ocean measurements of sea level change due to the overriding presence of natural variability.
• “Sea level rates up to three times the global mean rate are being observed in the western tropical Pacific since 1993 by satellite altimetry. From recently published studies, it is not yet clear whether the sea level spatial trend patterns of the Pacific Ocean observed by satellite altimetry are mostly due to internal climate variability or if some anthropogenic fingerprint is already detectable. We show that subtraction of the IPO contribution to sea level trends through the method of linear regression does not totally remove the internal variability, leaving significant signal related to the non-linear response of sea level to El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO). In addition, by making use of 21 CMIP5 coupled climate models, we study the contribution of external forcing to the Pacific Ocean regional sea level variability over 1993–2013, and show that according to climate models, externally forced and thereby the anthropogenic sea level fingerprint on regional sea level trends in the tropical Pacific is still too small to be observable by satellite altimetry.” (Palanisamy et al., 2015)
• “The tropical Pacific has featured some remarkable trends during the recent decades such as an unprecedented strengthening of the Trade Winds, a strong cooling of sea surface temperatures (SST) in the eastern and central part, thereby slowing global warming and strengthening the zonal SST gradient, and highly asymmetric sea level trends with an accelerated rise relative to the global average in the western and a drop in the eastern part. These trends have been linked to an anomalously strong Pacific Walker Circulation, the major zonal atmospheric overturning cell in the tropical Pacific sector, but the origin of the strengthening is controversial. Here we address the question as to whether the recent decadal trends in the tropical Pacific atmosphere-ocean system are within the range of internal variability, as simulated in long unforced integrations of global climate models. We show that the recent trends are still within the range of long-term internal decadal variability.” (Hadi Bordbar et al., 2016)
Further supporting the conclusion that an anthropogenic fingerprint has not yet been detected in sea level data, a compilation of records from 30 long-term Pacific Ocean tide gauges has been made available in a new paper (Parker, 2019) published in the journal Ocean and Coastal Management.
The averaged measurements from these 30 tide gauge instruments reveal a negative trend in both the rate of sea level rise (-0.02 mm/yr) and acceleration (-0.00007 mm/yr2) since the early 20th century.
Observations of negative sea level trends for the Earth’s largest ocean basin while CO2 concentrations rose from about 300 ppm (1900 C.E.) to well over 400 ppm obviously do not support the narrative that says anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a driver of relative sea level changes.
Climate model-based projections of meters of sea level rise by 2100 promulgated by proponents of human-induced climate alarm may therefore be categorized as both speculative and dubious.
The huge gap between climate models predictions and observed sea levels at tidal gauges is exemplified by a comparison at San Francisco
https://rclutz.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/sf-ca-past-projected.png
Other examples are here: https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2018/06/21/uscs-warnings-of-coastal-floodings/
Thank-you Ron a most impressive blog post at your site (yes Science Matters).
Of course there are some that frequent this site that insist the warm atmosphere can heat-up the oceans, and that the poles are loosing ice at an unprecedented rate. But as he is just another (and probably paid) cAGW advocate no one rational takes him or his nasty and irrelevant comments very seriously.
“… it is increasingly unacceptable to base coastal management on alarmist predictions that are not supported by measurements…”
Indeed: During the last ice age the sea levels were 400 feet below what we have today.
But are they doing? “Coastlines Under Attack: Storm Surges Artificially Created” – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ1ja1MBhpc
The past: “Shocking! Governments Are Preparing For A Mini Ice Age!” – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZ0nQR9m3OI&t=15m50s
“In 1997 there was a project called GRIP (Greenland Ice Core Project) where they drilled deep cores into the ice in central Greenland. They went down as much as two miles deep and pulled the cores up so that they could look at ice that had formed as much as two hundred and fifty thousand years ago, and they determined that every Ice Age in the last quarter million years, every single Ice Age began in less than 20 years, beginning in less than twenty years. It went from temperatures and climate as warm as today into full-fledged glacial severity in less than twenty years.”
– Robert Felix
Our next future:
“Ice Age Near” – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krJ0dx9eIk8
“❄ We MUST PREPARE! John L Casey Presentation 2012 Global Cooling ☀” – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhYjlLFRwyo
The climate sect makes it even worse: “David Keith’s Sun Dimming Experiment SCoPEx Possibly Coming Spring 2019 – ALL THE FACTS” – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wx-KYNy9_5o
And yet a carbon tax?
“Starting next spring, it’ll no longer be free to pollute in Canada” und ” Canada passed a carbon tax that will give most Canadians more money – By rebating the revenue to households, disposable income rises, which can be a boon for the Canadian economy” – https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/oct/26/canada-passed-a-carbon-tax-that-will-give-most-canadians-more-money also discussed in this video: “Northern Hemisphere is Not Warming (781)” – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yExR2VTAaOg
Notice: CO2 = pollution
The climate tax will surely be a boon.
“Coldest Montreal Snowstorm for a Century and the Mainstream Media’s Embarrassing “Explain-Away”” – https://electroverse.net/coldest-montreal-snowstorm-for-a-century-and-the-mainstream-medias-embarrassing-explain-away/
““Life-Threatening” -50F to Impact 200 Million in the US this Week” – https://electroverse.net/life-threatening-50f-to-impact-200-million-in-the-us-this-week/
—
“Grand Solar Minimum News with Lee Wheelbarger interviewing Charles Scott” – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HasMPE_uhm4
“Professor Valentina Zharkova Confirms “Super” Grand Solar Minimum [Edited}” – https://nextgrandminimum.com/2018/11/22/professor-valentina-zharkova-breaks-her-silence-and-confirms-super-grand-solar-minimum/
“Ice Age Now” – https://www.iceagenow.info/
“New Ice Age Ahead” – http://ice-age-ahead-iaa.ca/
“Adapt 2030” – https://www.youtube.com/user/MyanmarLiving/videos
“Ice Age Farmer” – https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCI-Am0t4qQaP_Do9FwMWw3Q/videos
Well, that should keep me busy for a while. Thanks, Sapaud
Just by looking briefly at the paper, I notice that the author does not calculate standard deviations, neither for the rate, nor for the acceleration. Just looking at the data scatter in his graphs, I reckon, the errors would make the actual numbers overlap with zero.
Language like this should be unacceptable in any scientifc publication. What kind of review did this go through?
Pacific trends and especially Japanese trends are positive btw:
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/
Some trends from Japan:
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=642-061
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=642-091
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=642-141
They seem to be higher than the global average …
And yes, there are stations that show oscillation and even a negative trend:
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=645-011
Did the author only look at those to make his unaccaptable point?
Did SebastianH miss the part of the article where it talks about assessments of acceleration can only be made with trends lasting longer than 100 years due to natural variability? None of his links satisfy this requirement.
Did SebastianH miss the part about using tide gauge data from regions where substantial and inconsistently oscillating subsidence and uplift trends did not skew the data in either direction?
Does SebastianH understand the difference between saying “sea levels are not rising around Japan” and “The Japan Meteorological Agency (2018) has shown that the relative rise in sea level on the coast of Japan has stabilized since the beginning of the 20th century and has not accelerated”?
Does SebastianH understand the difference between commenting on the rate of rise and the acceleration vs. the overall linear rise or fall of sea levels?
Did SebastianH even bother to read the paper for answers to his questions before he accused Ocean and Coastal Management of not peer-reviewing their publications?
Apparently not.
Kenneth Richard,
👍 on your observations on SebastianH comment, and would this be yet more evidence of SebastianH dismissing a scientists’ paper just because he dislike the message in the title as it runs against his profoundly held beliefs? Certainly he does not seem to have read the paper.
Ok, let’s take 20000 years then. I get a rather large increase in sea levels … now what?
Sorry, but skeptics search for data that looks like it supports their claims and ignore everything else. It has been this way since I got to know you guys.
I am not commenting on the merrits of this paper. I commented on the language used and the Pacific trend claim expressed here.
Are you trying to troll me on purpose? Let spike55 do that please … it’s more enjoyable to read what creative stuff he comes up with.
Let’s take 5,000 years. Sea levels have lowered by 2-3 meters since then. Now what?
Fixed.
Is questioning the peer-review process for a paper not a comment about its merits?
SebastianH says …
Sorry, but skeptics search for data that looks like it supports their claims and ignore everything else. It has been this way since I got to know you guys.
No need to be sorry or apologize SebastianH just because you have it wrong yet again.
We skeptic look for the real, observed processes that are the most relevant and likely ones to affect climate and its changes. There are many, most are quasi-cyclic as the scientifically analyzed history of this planet’s climate shows.
You and you band of cAGW advocates just complacently assign one (maybe 1½) process to global warming and therefore the control of climate. This is obvious nonsense as so many proxy analyses show CO2 does not control the climate (or weather).
You, and UN-IPCC cAGW advocates, have so little observational evidence and support therefore that CO2 paradigm is very, very unlikely, more probably utterly wrong. Yet people like you (the cAGW congregation) still erroneously claim a 97% consensus among scientist — that’s evidence of the cAGW congregation’s lies, just like the ‘climategate’ emails.
And look in the mirror, you’re the troll SebastianH. 🙂
You really don’t. That’s what you tell yourselves. In reality, you are trying to justify an irrational belief of how the world should work with whatever sounds promising to support that belief.
If you’d look at the actual processes there is no way one can’t recognize what is going on. It’s especially mind-boggling when one observes you guys argue against established physical mechanisms as if you have not the slightest clue what those are.
Nope.
Actually, they do show that large CO2 concentration increases that happened for another reason than a warming planet, caused climate to change quite often. But you are right, no proxy has ever shown that human CO2 caused any climate change … since well, it never happened before that a species emitted did what we did.
What? Literally all the evidence points to this. You really think this is just some conspiracy imagined up by those out to control you, do you?
Says the one who just trolled me. Hmm ..
And what might the “established physical mechanism” — found in real world observations — that tells us how much water cools when the CO2 concentration above it decreases by 10 ppm? Answer: there isn’t one. We have no measurements for the actual effect of CO2 changes on water temperatures. It’s a model-based assumption. And model-based assumptions aren’t “established physical mechanisms”.
What do you believe was the “another reason” that caused large CO2 (4,000 or 5,000 ppm) concentration increases and oft-occurring climate changes?
Literally all the evidence points to what? Disappearing glaciers in the Himalayas? Catastrophic Antarctic and Greenland ice sheet melt contribution to sea level rise? Coastlines and beaches submerged by sea level rise across the world? What?
It’s we-agree-so-we’re-right groupthink rooted in confirmation bias. Same reason why the Nobel Prize was awarded to a lobotomist in the late 1940s and by the early 1950s chiseling a hole in patients’ eye sockets with an ice pick and goring out the brain’s frontal lobe was considered “established” medical practice – perfomed 10s of thousands of times. No “conspiracy” was necessary. Just scientists agreeing with each other that they’re right. That is all it takes.
Poor seb..
ZERO EVIDENCE. and INCAPABLE of producing any.
“argue against established physical mechanisms “
You mean the one that YOU are incapable of describing and backing with anything resembling real empirical science ????
That MYTHICAL, scientifically unsupportable “mechanism”
Here’s another chance for you seb,
Put forward your understanding (LOL) of this “mechanism” back with empirical science.
We are all STILL waiting for you to get out of “demented puppy” mode.
(cue, another zero-scientific content rant from seb.)
I repeat, since you avoided answering two posts up
Here’s another chance for you seb,
Put forward your understanding (LOL) of this “mechanism” back with empirical science.
WAITING !! 😉
Only troll here is you seb.
Its your only purpose here.
Still waiting to see some actual science from you.
Look at your comment. It contains NOTHING !
Well, you went away for a long time. Where is your science? Shouldn’t you present “actual science”? How does the world work? I see you still believe in gravity and discard the radiative properties of certain gases … have you ever talked to an “actual scientist” about that and listened to the reply instead of imagining how he/she is planning to get dupe you?
Poor seb..
Not one of your posts contains ANY SCIENCE AT ALL.
They are SO EMPTY, that all one has to do is draw attention to that fact.
You have ZERO EVIDENCE….
… and you are INCAPABLE of producing any.
“I see you still believe in gravity “
roflmao.
stupid comment no# 1,546,545 from seb
So you don’t think gravity exists. REALLY ????
Hold a 10kg block of steel above your foot and let it go, see if that will dispel your ignorance.
A very good example of the average skeptics mindset.
But as per Kenneth-logic it’s perfectly fine to doubt that gravity can cause something obvious to happen since it never has been measured in the exact same situation despite the laws of physics not allowing for anything else to happen. So yeah, until you’ve shown that a block of steel above your foot does indeed fall down onto your foot, I’ll believe that there is no gravity at work above your foot. And when you’ve demonstrated this I’ll move the goal post and demand you to show me what happens when that steel block gets released above your foot while you stand on the surface of that exoplanet orbiting Proxima Centauri!
What skeptics tell themselves so their construct of reality doesn’t collapse 😉
[…] https://notrickszone.com/2019/01/28/pacific-ocean-tide-gauges-of-100-years-both-the-relative-rate-of-… […]
[…] https://notrickszone.com/2019/01/28/pacific-ocean-tide-gauges-of-100-years-both-the-relative-rate-of-… […]