Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Current Events Current Events Forum - Latest political news and events

LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old June 3rd, 2013, 06:49 PM   #1
excalibur's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: The Milky Way
Posts: 24,581
Sea Level Rise Data Based On Shoddy Science

As is virtually all the data used by the warm-mongers.

Or are these two scientists the growing legion of scientists who are 'deniers'?


SOON AND MORNER: Sea-level rise data based on shoddy science

By Willie Soon and Nils-Axel Morner

Monday, December 17, 2012

There is much concern over rising sea levels and disappearing coastline. Yet how are such changes really measured?

Satellites can measure tiny changes in sea levels referenced to a known baseline, but those measurements have only been available since 1993. Two other methods used for changes occurring over more than 100 years are tide gauges and efforts by the United Nations‘ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in computer modeling.

A tide gauge monitors water level changes in relation to a local reference height. They are simple devices, not too different from a pingpong ball floating in a tube. Tide gauge data are available for more than 1,750 stations around the world and are the longest time series available. In the case of Delaware, records go back to the early 20th century, while in places such as Amsterdam they go back to the late 17th century.

How reliable are such data?

In Atlantic City, for example, coastal engineer Cyril Galvin says the tide gauge data may be too sensitive to local and regional activities that aren’t ultimately related to “natural” changes in sea level — including any that might be related to greenhouse gas-induced global warming.

In examining sea-level changes for 100 years or more from stations on the Eastern Seaboard, Mr. Galvin could not find any acceleration in sea-level rise. University of Florida professor Robert Dean and Army Corps of Engineers analyst James Houston have independently reached this same conclusion.

While examining tide gauge records from Atlantic City's Steel Pier, Mr. Galvin discovered a remarkable effect apparently caused by spectators who came to watch horse-diving between 1929 and 1978. From old photographs, it was estimated that there must have been about 4,000 spectators who would come to watch. Given that this crowd probably weighed about 150 tons, the pier was subject to significant loading and unloading cycles. The initial 1912-1928 data showed the sea level rising at a rate of 0.12 inches per year. The rate tripled around 1929 when the horses began diving. When the shows were suspended from 1945 to 1953, sea level fell at a rate of 0.06 inches per year. When the diving resumed, the sea level rose again at a rate of 0.16 inches per year.

Such clear documentation of the direct influence of local weight loading and unloading activities on tide gauge reading should add a cautionary note to connecting tide gauge data series to man-made greenhouse gas global warming phenomena.

Model projections of rapid sea-level rise and acceleration caused by global warming as proposed by the IPCC’s coming Fifth Assessment Report should also be subject to scrutiny.

The first bit of bad news for the IPCC is that scientists have always been uncomfortable in predicting climate 20, 50 or 100 years in the future because they know that climate models are simply not up to the task. Such long-term climate forecasting is more the result of political pressure.

The major problems with simulating variations and changes in ice sheets have been known for a long time now. The key issue is the accurate representation of topography. In the Fifth Assessment Report’s climate models, the representation of the Greenland Ice Sheet, for example, is clearly deficient. Without the correct accounting for the valleys and hills beneath the ice sheet, melted ice quickly drains off the ice sheet and is counted as a net loss of ice mass.

In the real world of bumps and valleys in ice surfaces, refreezing can quickly occur when cold temperatures return. This is why Swiss Federal Institute of Technology scientists long ago concluded that it may even be possible for both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to gain ice mass under the doubled atmospheric carbon-dioxide scenario if improved climate models are used.

In an eagerly anticipated paper in the Journal of Climate, a group of scientists from the British Antarctic Survey documented how all of the 18 climate computer models that are used in the Fifth Assessment Report failed in the simple task of simulating the annual cycle and trends in the Antarctic sea ice extent. The authors found the majority of the climate models have too small a sea ice extent at minimum in February, while several of the models have less than two-thirds of the observed values at September maximum.

Even more devastating news is that the observed Antarctic sea ice extent over the past 30 years is showing an increasing trend, while most climate models produce decreasing sea ice extent. Such an obvious discrepancy from observed phenomena should once again cast strong suspicion upon rapid sea level change scenarios in the Fifth Assessment Report and render them void for use in public policy.

Not surprisingly, objective sea level research should be based on observational facts in nature itself and not on computer models.

The message is clear. When it comes to sea level, any reliance on the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report is misplaced. Study of current and ancient climate tells us that climate model predictions of rapid acceleration in global and regional sea levels are simple scaremongering. Prudent policymaking should be based on objective science rather than fear.

Willie Soon is an independent scientist. Nils-Axel Morner is a sea level expert at Stockholm University

Last edited by excalibur; June 3rd, 2013 at 06:54 PM.
excalibur is offline  
Old June 3rd, 2013, 07:02 PM   #2
Senior Member
RNG's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 29,626
A contrary view. With interesting, and referenced graphs.

Horseshit Power | Open Mind
RNG is offline  
Old June 3rd, 2013, 07:21 PM   #3
excalibur's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: The Milky Way
Posts: 24,581
There are several charts at the link. http://www.jcronline.org/doi/full/10...S-D-10-00157.1


In the Fourth Assessment Report (4AR) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Bindoff et al. (2007) project a global sea-level rise relative to 1990 of 18–59 cm by 2100 and add as much as 0.20 cm to the upper limit if melting of ice sheets increases in proportion to global average surface temperature increases (Meehl et al., 2007). The current sea-level trend of about 1.7 mm/y will produce a rise of about 19 mm over 110 years from 1990 to 2100, but a rise to 79 cm will require an acceleration of about 0.10 mm/y2. In the Copenhagen Synthesis report, Richardson et al. (2009) note that additional information, particularly on ice sheet dynamics, is available since 4AR. They also predict a rise of 1 m ± 0.5 m during the same period, requiring acceleration of about 0.05–0.22 mm/y2; however, it is not clear that the acceleration necessary to achieve these comparatively large projected rises in mean sea level over the course of the 21st century is evident in tide-gauge records.

Determining the rate of rise and acceleration of global mean sea level is complicated by the small number of long-term tide-gauge records and their concentration in the northern hemisphere, strong worldwide spatial variations of sea-level rise, vertical land movements, and seasonal-to-decadal temporal variations that can be large compared to sea-level trends and accelerations. Following Sturges and Hong (2001), we use the term “decadal” to refer to low-frequency variations that are longer than a year and can extend beyond 10 years, and are caused in part by wind and atmospheric pressure variations and the Rossby and Kelvin waves they produce. Acceleration is a second-order effect and influenced by these complications. Vertical land movements such as glacial isostatic adjustment are considered approximately linear over the record length analyzed; therefore, they do not affect acceleration (Douglas, 1992). Short-term vertical tectonic movements such as those arising from earthquakes can affect both the apparent sea-level trend and acceleration, and tide-gauge records with these movements should be excluded from analyses of trend and acceleration.

Previous Sea-Level Acceleration Studies

There have been several studies focusing on the acceleration of sea level. Woodworth (1990) analyzed long records from European tide gauges and found an overall slight deceleration from 1870 to 1990, although he found accelerations in individual gauge records. He also analyzed the four oldest European gauge records from Brest, Sheerness, Amsterdam, and Stockholm in 1807, 1834, 1799, and 1774, respectively. Woodworth found a small acceleration on the order of 0.004 mm/y2, which he indicated appeared typical of European Atlantic and Baltic coast mean sea-level acceleration over the last few centuries. He noted that this small acceleration was an order of magnitude less than anticipated from global warming. Jevrejeva et al. ( 2008 ) performed a similar analysis based on long-term tide-gauge recordings at Amsterdam, Liverpool, and Stockholm. Jevrejeva et al. concluded that sea level has accelerated an average of approximately 0.01 mm/y2 over the past 200 years, with the largest rise rate between 1920 and 1950.

Douglas (1992) analyzed 23 worldwide tide-gauge records of 75 years or greater and determined an average sea-level deceleration of −0.011 ± 0.012 mm/y2 (standard deviation [SD]) for the 80-year period from 1905 to 1985. Douglas further analyzed 37 global records that had an average length of 92 years and determined that from 1850–1991 the average acceleration was 0.001 ± 0.008 mm/y2 (SD). He noted that global climate models forecast acceleration over the next five to six decades in the range of 0.1–0.2 mm/y2 and concluded there was no evidence of acceleration in the past 100 or more years that was statistically significant or consistent with values predicted by global warming models. Church et al. (2004) used nine years of Topography Experiment (TOPEX)/Poseidon satellite-altimeter data to estimate global empirical orthogonal functions (EOFs) that were then combined with historical tide-gauge data to estimate global sea-level rise from 1950–2000. The data led them to conclude, “… there is no detectable secular increase in the rate of sea-level rise over the period 1950–2000.” Church and White (2006) used the same EOF method, 12 years of altimeter data, and extended the analysis back to 1870. They concluded that from January 1870 to December 2004 there was a sea-level acceleration of 0.013 ± 0.006 mm/y2 (95% confidence interval  =  95%) and a smaller acceleration of 0.008 ± 0.008 mm/y2 (95%) in the 20th century.

A review paper on sea-level acceleration by Woodworth et al. (2009) notes that the analysis by Church and White (2006) shows a positive acceleration, or “inflexion” point, around 1920–30. They do not use the mathematical definition of an inflexion point as the point where the curvature (second derivative) changes, but instead define it as a change in sea-level trend. They say that the inflexion point around 1920–30 is the main contributor to acceleration from 1870 to 2004. Woodworth et al. (2009) concluded there was consensus among the authors that acceleration occurred from around 1870 to the end of the 20th century; however, with the major acceleration occurring prior to 1930, the sea-level rise (Figure 1) appears approximately linear from 1930 to 2004. Church and White (2006) did not separately analyze this specific period.

Annual mean sea-level data from Bindoff et al. (2007). Red data from Church and White (2006), blue from Holgate and Woodworth (2004), and black from altimeter measurements from Leuliette, Nerem, and Mitchum (2004). Ninety percent confidence error bars shown.

The TOPEX/Poseidon satellite altimeter recorded sea level from August 1992 to 2005, and the Joint Altimetry Satellite Oceanography Network (JASON-1) satellite altimeter recorded from late 2001 to the present. The satellites measured remarkable spatial variation of sea-level rise from 1993 to 2008 (Figure 2). Altimeter measurements are quite valuable because they measure elevations over the oceans from 66°N to 66°S rather than at the limited number of coastal-gauge locations. In addition, altimeter measurements are not unduly affected by fresh-water runoff and other processes that may distort shallow-water tide-gauge records. On the other hand, Ablain et al. (2009) note the many uncertainties and sources of error in satellite-altimeter measurements, including drift, subgrid-scale homogeneity and sea-state biases, wet and dry troposphere, inverse barometer, and orbit corrections.

Satellite altimeter measurements from Willis (2010) of the change in sea level from 1993 to 2008.

From 1993–2010, these altimeters measured a global sea-level rise of 3.0 mm/y with the inverted barometer applied and the seasonal signal removed (University of Colorado, 2010). This rate is higher than the average 20th-century trend, but the trend fluctuated in the 20th century, and this rate is not uniquely high. Bindoff et al. (2007) note that sea-level trends similar to those measured by the altimeters have occurred in the past. Holgate (2007) calculated consecutive, overlapping 10-year-mean sea-level trends since 1910 for each of nine representative worldwide tide-gauge records. He found that the altimeters measured only the fourth highest of six peaks in rate since approximately 1910, with the highest rates of 5.31 mm/y centered on 1980 and 4.68 mm/y centered on 1939. Church et al. (2004) report that from 1950 to 2000 there have been periods with sea-level trends greater than those measured by the satellite altimeters. Similarly, White, Church, and Gregory (2005) note that sea-level trends varied from 0–4 mm/y from 1950–2000 with a maximum in the 1970s. Jevrejeva et al. (2006) analyzed 1023 gauge records over the 20th century and showed that the global sea-level trend measured by the satellite altimeters is similar to the trend from 1920–45.

Merrifield and Merrifield (2009) argue that the increase in the rate of sea-level rise measured by the satellite altimeters is a sign of an acceleration that is distinct from decadal variations. They note that sea-level rise recorded by northern ocean (25°N to 65°N) gauges is trendless, being approximately constant since around 1925, but that southern (65°S to 25°S) and tropical (25°S to 25°N) ocean gauges have decadal variations that are typically 180° out of phase so that when one experiences an increase in the rate of sea-level rise the other experiences a decrease. Merrifield and Merrifield say that after the mid-1980s, the two became in phase, and their rise dominates the increase in sea-level trend measured by the satellite altimeters. Thus, they believe this recent increase in sea-level trend represents a long-term change rather than a cyclical variation and is caused by ice melt and a subduction of heat below the upper layers of the ocean; however, they note that few sea-level measurements from the tropical and southern oceans were made before approximately 1965. Merrifield and Merrifield (2009) show there have been only two cycles of decadal variations in sea-level trends since 1965 with the tropical and southern oceans' decadal oscillations being out of phase the first three half-cycles and in phase the latest half-cycle; therefore, it does not seem possible to discern from just two cycles whether the current half-cycle is a long-term change or a normal variation.

Recent papers such as those by Vermeer and Rahmsdorf (2009), Jevrejeva, Moore, and Grinsted (2010), and Grinsted, Moore, and Jevrejeva (2010) offer an alternative to the IPCC's approach of estimating future sea-level rise by modeling the major components of the sea-level budget. Their approach is based on statistical models that use semiempirical relationships between past and predicted future global temperature changes to predict sea-level rise. Using this approach, they predict a global mean sea-level rise between 0.6–1.9 m from 1990–2100. These levels would require accelerations of 0.07–0.28 mm/y2 above the current trend over the 110-year period.

Studies of sea-level trend have converged on a rate of approximately 1.7–1.8 mm/y in the 20th century but there is disagreement on the rate of acceleration or even whether acceleration has or can be detected. As noted earlier, Woodworth et al. (2009), in a review article authored by six of the leading sea-level researchers and citing Church and White (2006), conclude that there is consensus among the authors that sea level accelerated from 1870 to 2004. However, they indicate much of the acceleration occurred prior to 1930, and they do not address the question of whether sea level has accelerated during the 80 years from 1930–2010. Indeed, they state, “… little evidence has been found in individual tide gauge records for an ongoing positive acceleration of the sort suggested for the 20th century by climate models” ( Woodworth et al., p. 778 ) They mention that most analyses have used essentially the same data set combined in different ways and there is a need to augment the data set.


Douglas (1992) notes that sea-level trends obtained from tide-gauge records with lengths less than 50–60 years are significantly “corrupted” by decadal variations; therefore, we analyzed U.S. tide-gauge records having at least 60, an average of 82, and as many as 156 years (San Francisco, California) of data recorded at single locations and without significant tectonic activity that has produced vertical-datum shifts. The 57 tide-gauge stations listed in Table 1 and shown in Figure 3 met these criteria; however, we eliminated two Alaska tide-gauge stations, Seward and Kodiak Island, Alaska, because the 1964 Alaskan earthquake significantly changed their datums. We did not modify the data by glacial-isostatic adjustment because glacial rebound is approximately linear over the lengths of the records and thus does not affect acceleration (Douglas, 1992). We also analyzed gauge records from 1930–2010 at 25 gauge locations shown in Table 1. Data were obtained from the PSMSL data base at Data at PSMSL (Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level, 2010a) as described by Woodworth and Player (2003).

Accelerations for all 57 gauge records and 25 gauge records having data since 1930.

For each of the 57 and 25 tide-gauge records, we determined the offset, a0 in mm, slope, a1 in mm/y, and quadratic-term acceleration, a2 in mm/y2, using a least-squares analysis that fit the data with the quadratic equation
where t  =  time in years and y(t) is the measured tide at time t. Only the acceleration results are reported here.


Our first analysis determined the acceleration, a2, for each of the 57 records with results tabulated in Table 1 and shown in Figure 4. There is almost a balance with 30 gauge records showing deceleration and 27 showing acceleration, clustering around 0.0 mm/y2. The mean is a slight deceleration of a2  =  −0.0014 ± 0.0161 mm/y2 (95%). As in Douglas (1992), we computed the error of the mean from the residuals about the mean, not from the error estimates of the individual gauge records. There are six outliers (Figure 4) with absolute values of acceleration greater than approximately 0.01 mm/y2. The record lengths of these outliers are relatively short, between 62 and 70 years. They are all in areas that have greater than average rises or falls in average mean sea level during the 15 years of altimeter measurements shown in Figure 2. Large changes in trends during the approximate final quarters of these records leads to large positive and negative accelerations. Figure 2 shows relatively large sea-level increases in the western Pacific, Guam, Midway, and Kwajalein, contributing to accelerations of 0.2546, 0.1382, and 0.1060 mm/y2, respectively. Relatively large sea-level decreases are seen in Figure 2 along the coast of Alaska, Yakutat, Adak, and Skagway, contributing to decelerations of −0.1880, −0.1410, and −0.0994 mm/y2, respectively. If these six gauge records are eliminated from the analysis the mean is −0.0027 ± 0.0085 mm/y2 (95%), which is still a very small deceleration because of the balance of negative and positive accelerations, but has a reduced 95% confidence interval. The near balance of accelerations and decelerations is mirrored in worldwide-gauge records as shown in Miller and Douglas (2006) (their Figure 1).

Since the worldwide data of Church and White (2006) from 1870–2001 (Figure 1) appear to have a linear rise since around 1930, we analyzed the period 1930 to 2010 for 25 of the 57 gauge records that had records during that period. As tabulated in Table 1 and seen in Figure 5, 16 records showed decelerations and 9 showed accelerations. None of the six outliers of the previous analysis have records extending back to 1930. We found a mean deceleration of −0.0123 ± 0.0104 mm/y2 (95%). There is little regional dependence with 17 gauge records from Atlantic and Gulf coasts having an average deceleration of −0.0138 ± 0.0148 mm/y2 (95%), and 8 gauge records from the Pacific coast having an average deceleration of −0.0091 ± 0.0096 mm/y2 (95%). In addition, results did not depend greatly on data quality. We restricted the analysis to 18 gauge records having no more than 5% missing data (with an average missing data of only 1%), and the mean deceleration was −0.00117 ± 0.0092 mm/y2 (95%).

We also analyzed the worldwide data of Church and White (2006) for the period 1930–2001 and obtained a deceleration of −0.0066 mm/y2. In 2009, Church and White posted a revised data set at Church and White Reconstruction that extended their original data set through 2007 and revised much of the early data. We analyzed the new data set from 1930–2007 and obtained a deceleration of −0.0130 mm/y2. Therefore, the deceleration that we find in U.S. gauge records for 1930–2010 is consistent with worldwide-gauge data of Church and White (Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level, 2010b).

The seminal paper by Douglas (1992) analyzed representative worldwide gauges from 1905–85. His analysis showed a deceleration over the 80-year period of −0.011 ± 0.012 mm/y2 (SD). We extended his analysis to 2010 by an additional 25 years of data in order to compare our results for U.S. gauge records with his for worldwide-gauge records and also to determine the effect of adding the years where satellite altimeters have recorded a sea-level trend greater than the 20th-century trend.

Table 2 compares the accelerations obtained by Douglas (1992) for 1905–85 to those that we obtained for 1905–2010. Douglas (1992) divides the world into 10 regions and determines mean accelerations for each region. He then averages the regional accelerations to determine a global-mean acceleration. Our addition of 25 years of data has little effect, producing a deceleration of −0.012 ± 0.012 mm/y2 (SD), only slightly greater in magnitude than Douglas obtained. Furthermore, Holgate (2007) analyzed nine long worldwide tide-gauge records and found a decrease in the sea-level trend from the period 1904–53 to the period 1954–2003 that is equivalent to a deceleration of −0.012 mm/y2, the same that we obtained by extending Douglas's analysis to the period 1905–2010. Holgate noted that the deceleration he obtained was consistent with “… a general deceleration of sea level rise during the 20th century” (pp. 243–244) that he said was suggested in analyses by Woodworth (1990), Douglas (1992), and Jevrejeva et al. (2006). We repeated the reanalysis of data presented in Douglas (1992) for the period 1930–2010 and obtained a deceleration of −0.015 ± 0.011 mm/y2 (SD), which is somewhat greater than the deceleration from 1905–20

Comparison of sea level accelerations (mm/y2) obtained by Douglas (1992) for 1905–85 with accelerations we obtained for 1905–2010. The six locations marked with an * do not have records beyond 1985, so we used the results in Douglas (1992). If the six locations are eliminated from the analysis, the deceleration is 0.000 ± 0.006 mm/y2 (SD).

Douglas also selected 37 gauges that had a record length greater than 75 years during the years 1850–1991 and as a group had a mean record length of 92 years. He analyzed them using the same 10 regions and obtained a very small mean acceleration of 0.001 ± 0.008 (SD). We extended the records to 2010. Several European gauges and gauges in 3 of the 10 regions stopped recording prior to 1991, so we accepted the values determined by Douglas. For the same data set and using the same approach that he used to determine acceleration, we obtained a very small mean deceleration of −0.001 ± 0.007 mm/y2 (SD). If the gauges without records beyond 1991 are eliminated from the analysis, we obtain 0.000 ± 0.006 mm/y2 (SD).


We analyzed the complete records of 57 U.S. tide gauges that had average record lengths of 82 years and records from 1930 to 2010 for 25 gauges, and we obtained small decelerations of −0.0014 and −0.0123 mm/y2, respectively. We obtained similar decelerations using worldwide-gauge records in the original data set of Church and White (2006) and a 2009 revision (for the periods of 1930–2001 and 1930–2007) and by extending Douglas's (1992) analyses of worldwide gauges by 25 years.

The extension of the Douglas (1992) data from 1905 to 1985 for 25 years to 2010 included the period from 1993 to 2010 when satellite altimeters recorded a sea-level trend greater than that of the 20th century, yet the addition of the 25 years resulted in a slightly greater deceleration. The explanation may be, as noted by Domingues et al. ( 2008 ), that altimeter and tide-gauge measurements were in good agreement up until 1999 and then began to diverge with the altimeters recording a significantly higher sea-level trend than worldwide-tide gauge records. Domingues et al. say that an explanation for the divergence is “urgently needed” (p. 1092) This divergence adds significant uncertainty to the altimeter measurements because tide-gauge records are used to calibrate the altimeter and correct for drift (Bindoff et al., 2007). Moreover, Ablain et al. (2009) show that 3- and 5-year moving averages of the trend measured by the altimeters have shown a continual decline in trend with the 3-year average having recently dropped as low as 1 mm/y and the 5-year average approaching 2 mm/y. We analyzed the altimeter data from November 1992 to April 2010 and found a deceleration of −0.06 mm/y2. Furthermore, Holgate (2007) showed decadal oscillations from 1904 to 2003 by plotting 10-year moving averages of trends for tide-gauge data. We performed the same analysis using data from the University of Colorado (2010). Figure 6 shows 10-year moving averages of trends measured by the altimeters (represented by black dots) plotted vs. Holgate's data. The trend from 1993 to 2003 is represented by a dot at 1998, the trend from 1994 to 2004 by another dot at 1999, and so on with the final dot at 2005, representing the trend from 2000 to 2010. When viewed in this historical perspective, the altimeter measurements appear similar to several decadal oscillations over the past 100 years, and it is not possible to determine if the increased trend measured by the altimeters is the leading edge of acceleration or merely a typical decadal oscillation; however, the decreasing average suggests an oscillation.

Chao, Wu, and Lee ( 2008 ) analyzed the effect of water impoundment by reservoirs and determined that the impoundment reduced sea-level rise by an average of approximately 0.55 mm/y for the past half-century. They showed (in their Figure 4) that if the data of Church and White (2006) were modified to include the impoundment, the trend of sea level since 1930 would be almost linear rather than the deceleration that we have noted. Water impoundment is a possible explanation for the deceleration we found from 1930–2010 in U.S. and worldwide-gauge records. However, in the IPCC, Bindoff et al. (2007) note that the reservoir impoundment is largely offset by other anthropogenic activities that accelerated since 1930, such as groundwater extraction, shrinkage of large lakes, wetland loss, and deforestation. Sahagian (2000) indicated that the net land–water interchange that includes all of these factors was on the order of 0.05 mm y–1 of sea-level rise over the past 50 years, with an uncertainty several times as large. This net contribution to sea level is an order of magnitude less than the contribution that Chao, Wu, and Lee ( 2008 ) determined by considering only impoundment. Huntington ( 2008 ) showed ranges of the contribution of each term of the land–water interchange determined in several studies and concluded that the net effect of all the contributions was to increase the sea-level trend. Therefore, the conclusions of Sahagian (2000) and Huntington ( 2008 ) do not support the land–water interchange as an explanation for the deceleration of sea level in the 20th century. However, there are large uncertainties in the magnitudes of the terms in the land–water interchange and disagreements among investigators as to the net effect of the interchange. For example, Gornitz (2001) determined that the net was a reduction of 0.9 ± 0.5 mm/y (SD) in sea-level rise.

Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) twin satellites launched in March 2002 are making detailed measurements of Earth's gravity field and have the potential to reduce the uncertainty of the contribution of the land–water interchange to sea-level change. Ramillien et al. ( 2008 ) analyzed GRACE measurements for a 3-year period from 2003–06 and determined that the net contribution of the land–water interchange was to increase the trend of sea level by 0.19 ± 0.06 mm/y. Llovel et al. (2010) performed a similar analysis for the 7-year period from August 2002 to July 2009 and determined the opposite, i.e., that the interchange decreased the trend of sea level by 0.22 ± 0.05 mm/y. They noted that during the period of analysis the cycle of dry and wet conditions in the Amazon basin dominated the total land–water interchange signal and stated, “The fact that the land-water component oscillates from positive to negative values depending on the time span strongly suggests the dominance of interannual variability for this component” (pp. 186–187). Interannual variability that is sufficiently large enough to change the sign of the net land–water interchange suggests that the net contribution of reservoir impoundment, groundwater extraction, shrinkage of large lakes, wetland loss, and deforestation must be close to zero and, therefore, the net contribution of these terms does not explain the deceleration of sea level from 1930–2010. Llovel et al. (2010) concluded that year-to-year variability so dominated the value they estimated that it could not be considered as representative of a long-term trend. Several additional years of GRACE measurements will be necessary to accurately determine the contribution of the land–water interchange to sea level.


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 +0.28 mm/y2 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 from 1906 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.

Last edited by excalibur; June 3rd, 2013 at 07:32 PM.
excalibur is offline  
Old June 3rd, 2013, 07:54 PM   #4
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Gamma Solaris
Posts: 22,930
Originally Posted by excalibur View Post
Determining the rate of rise and acceleration of global mean sea level is complicated by the small number of long-term tide-gauge records and their concentration in the northern hemisphere, strong worldwide spatial variations of sea-level rise, vertical land movements, and seasonal-to-decadal temporal variations that can be large compared to sea-level trends and accelerations.
Cutting to the chase (so to speak!)...good post, though, Ex.

As I've said upon many occasions...you need data all taken on accurate instruments, all calibrated in unison, placed everywhere on land, sea, air and space...for many tens of millions of years to get climate predictions right.

Geez, I say tell me if it will rain the day after tomorrow before anyone can tell me what's going on next month.
Tony is offline  
Old June 3rd, 2013, 08:01 PM   #5
Senior Member
imaginethat's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 59,733
Yes, thank you for posting the work of two prime examples of the growing legion of scientists who are "deniers."

Willie "Follow the Money" Soon

In 2003, Willie Soon was first author on a review paper in the journal Climate Research, with Sallie Baliunas as co-author. This paper concluded that "the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium."

Shortly thereafter, 13 scientists published a rebuttal to the paper. There were three main objections: 1. Soon and Baliunas used data reflective of changes in moisture, rather than temperature; 2. they failed to distinguish between regional and hemispheric mean temperature anomalies; and 3. they reconstructed past temperatures from proxy evidence not capable of resolving decadal trends. Soon, Baliunas and David Legates published a response to these claims.

After disagreement with the publisher and other members of the editorial board, Hans Von Storch, Clare Goodess, and 2 more members of the journal's 10 member editorial board, resigned in protest against what they felt was a failure of the peer review process on the part of the journal. Otto Kinne, managing director of the journal's parent company, stated that "CR [Climate Research] should have been more careful and insisted on solid evidence and cautious formulations before publication" and that "CR should have requested appropriate revisions of the manuscript prior to publication."

Soon and Baliunas have also been criticised because their research budget was funded in part by the American Petroleum Institute.

In 2011, it was revealed that Soon received over $1,000,000 from petroleum and coal interests since 2001. Documents obtained by Greenpeace under the US Freedom of Information Act show that the Charles G. Koch Foundation gave Soon two grants totaling $175,000 in 2005/6 and again in 2010. Multiple grants from the American Petroleum Institute between 2001 and 2007 totalled $274,000, and grants from Exxon Mobil totalled $335,000 between 2005 and 2010. Other coal and oil industry sources which funded him include the Mobil Foundation, the Texaco Foundation and the Electric Power Research Institute. Soon has stated unequivocally that he has "never been motivated by financial reward in any of my scientific research." and "would have accepted money from Greenpeace if they had offered it to do my research."
Willie Soon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nils-Axel "Self-Published" Morner

Mörner disagrees with the view of future rise in sea level caused by global warming. Mörner's self-published 2007 20-page booklet The Greatest Lie Ever Told, refers to his belief that observational records of sea levels for the past 300 years that show variations - ups and downs, but no significant trend. This contrasts with the usual view that sea level rise has been occurring at 2–3 mm/yr over the last century.[8] Mörner asserts that satellite altimetry data indicate a mean rise in the order of 1.0 mm/yr from 1986 to 1996, whereas most studies find a value around 3 mm/yr.

Mörner believes that sea level rise will not exceed 200 mm, within a range of either +100±100 mm or +50±150 mm based on satellite data over the last 40 years and observational records over the last 300 years. In 2004 the president of INQUA wrote that INQUA did not subscribe to Mörner's views on climate change.

In 2000 he launched an international sea level research project in the Maldives which claims to demonstrate an absence of signs of any on-going sea level rise. Despite President Gayoom speaking in the past about the impending dangers to his country, the Maldives, Mörner concluded that the people of the Maldives have in the past survived a higher sea level about 50–60 cm and there is evidence of a significant sea level fall in the last 30 years in that Indian Ocean area. However, these conclusions were not supported by follow-up studies.

In an interview in June, 2007, Mörner described research he had done in the Maldives that had been reported in the documentary Doomsday Called Off. Specifically, he mentioned a tree he had discovered growing close to the shoreline as evidence to support his claim that sea level had actually fallen rather than risen. He also alleged that the tree had been deliberately destroyed by a group of Australian researchers who were promoting the IPCC view that sea level was rising.

Mörner's claim that sea levels are not rising has been criticised for ignoring correctly calibrated satellite altimeter records, all of which show that sea levels are rising.

Views on dowsing

Mörner has written a number of works claiming to provide theoretical support for dowsing. He was elected "Deceiver of the year" by Föreningen Vetenskap och Folkbildning in 1995 for "organizing university courses about dowsing...". In 1997 James Randi asked him to claim One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge, making a controlled experiment to prove that dowsing works. Mörner declined the offer.
Nils-Axel Mörner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
imaginethat is offline  
Old June 3rd, 2013, 08:06 PM   #6
Senior Member
imaginethat's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 59,733
Doing a little due diligence would be something I'd expect of you, excaliber, except on this subject
imaginethat is offline  
Old June 3rd, 2013, 09:01 PM   #7
excalibur's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: The Milky Way
Posts: 24,581
You warm-mongers always fall back onto personally attacking the messengers. Who cares about dowsing? Has his [Mörner] tidal data been proven incorrect? From that article: "In examining sea-level changes for 100 years or more from stations on the Eastern Seaboard, Mr. Galvin could not find any acceleration in sea-level rise. University of Florida professor Robert Dean and Army Corps of Engineers analyst James Houston have independently reached this same conclusion."

Ignoring data that others contributed to their 2012 article as well.

This was a sort of set up anyway for the second article. http://www.jcronline.org/doi/full/10...S-D-10-00157.1

As for Soon, so? Someone had to fund him. As usual, since the funding had to come from outside the entrenched warm-monger clique, he got it somewhere else. Proves nothing. Diversion is all.

Last edited by excalibur; June 3rd, 2013 at 09:08 PM.
excalibur is offline  

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

based, data, level, rise, science, sea, shoddy

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Judge orders Google to turn over data to FBI warrantless demands for customer data. intangible child Current Events 28 November 9th, 2013 10:40 AM
Change from ground level to top level cubella Business & Industries 0 July 23rd, 2009 09:38 AM
Normal Science is Lamp-Post Science coberst Philosophy 0 August 12th, 2008 12:49 PM
AT&T rewrites rules: Your data isn't yours intangible child Political Talk 10 July 13th, 2006 08:19 AM

Facebook Twitter RSS Feed

Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.