New Peer Reviewed Analysis: "Worldwide Temperature Increase has not Produced Acceleration of Global Sea Level Rise"

[BethesdaWX]

New peer reviewed study suggests sea level rise has not accelerated over the past 100yrs despite increasing temperatures.

http://www.jcronline...ES-D-10-00157.1

Yes, me being a skeptic, I'm going to jump at this opportunity out of my Bias

We analyzed the complete records of 57 U.S. tide gauges that had average record lengths of 82 years and records from1930 to 2010 for 25 gauges, and we obtained small decelerations of 20.0014 and20.0123 mm/y2, respectively. We obtained similar decelerations using worldwide-gauge records in the original data set of Church andWhite (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.

[stellarfun]

New peer reviewed study suggests sea level rise has not accelerated over the past 100yrs despite increasing temperatures.

http://www.jcronline...ES-D-10-00157.1

Yes, me being a skeptic, I'm going to jump at this opportunity out of my Bias

We analyzed the complete records of 57 U.S. tide gauges that had average record lengths of 82 years and records from1930 to 2010 for 25 gauges, and we obtained small decelerations of 20.0014 and20.0123 mm/y2, respectively. We obtained similar decelerations using worldwide-gauge records in the original data set of Church andWhite (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.

Why does that article have no volume or issue number? Everything is 0's.

From the current issue of JCR (March 2011)

The Australasian region has four very long, continuous tide gauge records, at Fremantle (1897), Auckland (1903), Fort Denison (1914), and Newcastle (1925), which are invaluable for considering whether there is evidence that the rise in mean sea level is accelerating over the longer term at these locations in line with various global average sea level time-series reconstructions. These long records have been converted to relative 20-year moving average water level time series and fitted to second-order polynomial functions to consider trends of acceleration in mean sea level over time. The analysis reveals a consistent trend of weak deceleration at each of these gauge sites throughout Australasia over the period from 1940 to 2000. Short period trends of acceleration in mean sea level after 1990 are evident at each site, although these are not abnormal or higher than other short-term rates measured throughout the historical record.

http://www.jcronline...ES-D-10-00141.1

As for the missing volume and issue numbers, maybe one reason is that the authors appear to have assumed that global temperature rise was linear for the past 100 years; you will note there was no attempt to correlate decadal changes in global temperature with decadal changes in sea level. The abstract that I quoted from above hints that there may be a correlation between recent acceleration and global warming.

^^^The global temperature record suggests that you wouldn't see an effect on sea level until after 1980, and I presume there is a lag of some years before the effects (e.g., from glacial melting)would be manifest.

[BethesdaWX]

Why does that article have no volume or issue number? Everything is 0's.

From the current issue of JCR (March 2011)

http://www.jcronline...ES-D-10-00141.1

As for the missing volume and issue numbers, maybe one reason is that the authors appear to have assumed that global temperature rise was linear for the past 100 years; you will note there was no attempt to correlate decadal changes in global temperature with decadal changes in sea level. The abstract that I quoted from above hints that there may be a correlation between recent acceleration and global warming.

^^^The global temperature record suggests that you wouldn't see an effect on sea level until after 1980, and I presume there is a lag of some years before the effects (e.g., from glacial melting)would be manifest.

??? I don't think you read the paper thoroughly.

You "presume"? Ok, you can presume, but thats not science. It has ben widely touted in the "rapid melting" of glaciers since about 1950 or so, and an accelerated warming trend after 1976, ending in 2002. The accelerated warming trend beginning around 1916-1946, and another from 1976-1998, non linear but a "mean" acceleration that should manistest in GSR 3 decades ago, hs done the opposite...slowed.

Now with the Cooling for about a decade, what do you think will happen to GSR?

[stellarfun]

??? I don't think you read the paper thoroughly.

You "presume"? Ok, you can presume, but thats not science. It has ben widely touted in the "rapid melting" of glaciers since about 1950 or so, and an accelerated warming trend after 1976, ending in 2002. The accelerated warming trend beginning around 1916-1946, and another from 1976-1998, non linear but a "mean" acceleration that should manistest in GSR 3 decades ago, hs done the opposite...slowed.

Now with the Cooling for about a decade, what do you think will happen to GSR?

I can read well enough.

I asked you a question: why is there no volume or issue number for that article?

If you don't know, say you don't know. Or didn't Watts or some similar blog explain it?

As far as glacial melting, below, excerpted from Wiki, is data on the Greenland glaciers, and I believe you would agree that melting there would contribute to sea level rise.

In Greenland, glacier retreat has been observed in outlet glaciers, resulting in an increase of the ice flow rate and destabilization of the mass balance of the ice sheet that is their source. The net loss in volume and hence sea level contribution of the Greenland Ice Sheet (GIS) has doubled in recent years from 90 km³ (22 cu mi) to 220 km³ (53 cu mi) per year.^[76] Researchers also noted that the acceleration was widespread affecting almost all glaciers south of 70 N by 2005. The period since 2000 has brought retreat to several very large glaciers that had long been stable. Three glaciers that have been researched—Helheim Glacier, Kangerdlugssuaq Glacier, and Jakobshavn Isbræ—jointly drain more than 16% of the Greenland Ice Sheet. In the case of Helheim Glacier, researchers used satellite images to determine the movement and retreat of the glacier. Satellite images and aerial photographs from the 1950s and 1970s show that the front of the glacier had remained in the same place for decades. In 2001 the glacier began retreating rapidly, and by 2005 the glacier had retreated a total of 7.2 km (4.5 mi), accelerating from 20 m (66 ft) per day to 35 m (115 ft) per day during that period.^[77]

Jakobshavn Isbræ in west Greenland, a major outlet glacier of the Greenland Ice Sheet, has been the fastest moving glacier in the world over the past half century. It had been moving continuously at speeds of over 24 m (79 ft) per day with a stable terminus since at least 1950. In 2002 the 12 km (7.5 mi) long floating terminus of the glacier entered a phase of rapid retreat, with the ice front breaking up and the floating terminus disintegrating and accelerating to a retreat rate of over 30 m (98 ft) per day. On a shorter timescale, portions of the main trunk of Kangerdlugssuaq Glacier that were flowing at 15 m (49 ft) per day from 1988 to 2001 were measured to be flowing at 40 m (130 ft) per day in the summer of 2005. Not only has Kangerdlugssuaq retreated, it has also thinned by more than 100 m (330 ft).^[78]

The rapid thinning, acceleration and retreat of Helheim, Jakobshavns and Kangerdlugssuaq glaciers in Greenland, all in close association with one another, suggests a common triggering mechanism, such as enhanced surface melting due to regional climate warming or a change in forces at the glacier front. The enhanced melting leading to lubrication of the glacier base has been observed to cause a small seasonal velocity increase and the release of meltwater lakes has also led to only small short term accelerations.^[79] The significant accelerations noted on the three largest glaciers began at the calving in front and propagated inland and are not seasonal in nature.^[80] Thus, the primary source of outlet glacier acceleration widely observed on small and large calving glaciers in Greenland is driven by changes in dynamic forces at the glacier front, not enhanced meltwater lubrication.^[80]

Bolding mine.

What is your source for rapid melting of glaciers has been occurring since 1950 or so?

In this latest research, Hamish Pritchard of the British Antarctic Survey and his colleagues have now mapped the entire margins of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. They achieved this in unprecedented detail by reflecting signals off the ground using lasers aboard ICESat – a NASA satellite launched in 2002. Reporting their finding in Nature, the researchers find that the dynamic thinning of glaciers now reaches all latitudes in Greenland and has intensified on many Antarctic sites.

By monitoring these regions between 2003 and 2008, the researchers found that, in Greenland, glaciers flowing faster than 100 m/yr thinned at an average rate of 0.84 m/yr; while in the Amundsen Sea embayment of Antarctica thinning was as high as 9 m/yr for some glaciers. They attribute these high speeds to the fact that dynamic thinning now occurs deep in the interior of each ice sheet. "We were surprised to see such a strong pattern of thinning glaciers across such large areas of coastline – it's widespread and in some cases thinning extends hundreds of kilometres inland," said Pritchard.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/40473

[Clifford]

I can read well enough.

I asked you a question: why is there no volume or issue number for that article?

If you don't know, say you don't know. Or didn't Watts or some similar blog explain it?

http://www.jcronline.org/doi/abs/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1

"ONLINE AHEAD OF PRINT"

"Received: October 5, 2010; Accepted: November 26, 2010; Published Online: February 23, 2011"

The website seems to have some "printed" articles, and some "online" articles.

Here is a similar article, but discussing only a few Australian stations.

http://www.jcronline.org/doi/abs/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00141.1

The sea level change appears to be non linear with the highest changes in the 1940's/1950's, and again in the 1990's. However, they also conclude a decelerating sea level change.

[stellarfun]

From the Corps of Engineers laboratory in Vicksburg (same facility as one of the authors).

http://www.mvd.usace.army.mil/lcast/pdfs/07jun/SeaLevelRise.pdf

There are charts there that show deceleration if you are looking on a multi-decadal time-scale, but the Corps, which is not looking at the issue in an academic or abstract way, is not relying on historic trend (which they describe as low sensitivity) to decide how high to build.

[BethesdaWX]

No need to argue into specifics Stellar, You prove my point in a sense that rapid warming has been going on, since the end of the LIA, and yet sea level does not correlate.......point is Temperature increase in the 20th century has not led to accelerating sea level rise..instead it is but the same Trend that has been in place since about 1700, the end of the LIA. The warming began around 1700 drastically, and continued through today.

There really is no need to go any further, its an obvious conclusion to come to.

BTW, have you downloaded Cyrosat2? I'm in the process of doing so myself, knowing its a much better measurement of Volume than IceSAT. Cyrosat1 was in the opposite camp from IceSAT.

[tacoman25]

I think the overall evidence clearly does not point to an accelerating sea level rise over the past 50 or 100 years...despite the fact that we saw more rapid warming over the second half of the century than the first.

Is sea level rise "in the pipeline" as well? I don't see how it would be, since the "pipeline" is the oceans.

[Clifford]

Keep in mind that the sea level changes are not uniform around the country and around the world.

http://www.globalcha...ents/us-impacts (page 37)

http://tidesandcurre...echrpt36doc.pdf

Sea levels are actually falling at many West Coast US stations, but have significant variability.

And going up significantly more at the East Coast stations, some in excess of 5mm/year.

The USACE article by StellarFun talked about Louisiana, and to a lesser extent Florida.

Some of the issues it mentions includes negative impact from damming, dikes, draining, and development, as well as subsidence caused by removing oil and groundwater. So, theoretically they get hit double. Once by removing the oil from the ground, and again from the CO₂ released by the oil.

The NOAA article also shows trends by decade for several stations, again with no obvious acceleration.

Of course, most of the change in sea level is due to warming of the oceans, and not due to glacier melt.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.../global/2010/13

The calculated sea surface temperature rise has also been quite linear, with not obvious acceleration.

The use of fossil fuels has been accelerating in the 20^th century.

However, the predicted non-linear response to increasing carbon dioxide levels could balance out the increasing fuel consumption, creating a linear temperature response.

And a corresponding linear steric sea level increase.

[skierinvermont]

I think the overall evidence clearly does not point to an accelerating sea level rise over the past 50 or 100 years...despite the fact that we saw more rapid warming over the second half of the century than the first.

Is sea level rise "in the pipeline" as well? I don't see how it would be, since the "pipeline" is the oceans.

Bingo.. except for the use of the word 'despite' .. there is no expectation of a 1:1 correlation between the slope of SLR and slope of temperature.

[tacoman25]

Bingo.. except for the use of the word 'despite' .. there is no expectation of a 1:1 correlation between the slope of SLR and slope of temperature.

Right...but since the general argument for why we aren't seeing more rapid temperature rise is that the heat is going into the "pipeline" (the oceans), wouldn't that mean sea level rise should be accelerating? If anything, there should be a more direct relationship between CO2 slope and SLR than CO2 and temperature...I would think.

[skierinvermont]

Right...but since the general argument for why we aren't seeing more rapid temperature rise is that the heat is going into the "pipeline" (the oceans), wouldn't that mean sea level rise should be accelerating? If anything, there should be a more direct relationship between CO2 slope and SLR than CO2 and temperature...I would think.

There's also a large contribution due to mass balance, which may fluctuate over time due to regional and local phenomena.

[tacoman25]

There's also a large contribution due to mass balance, which may fluctuate over time due to regional and local phenomena.

Not sure what you mean. Aren't we talking about global sea level rise?

[BethesdaWX]

There's also a large contribution due to mass balance, which may fluctuate over time due to regional and local phenomena.

Give it up bro

[WxUSAF]

Why is the peer-review process pilloried by skeptics for the thousands of journal articles supporting anthropogenic climate change, but a feather in the cap of the "skeptics" when a paper supports them?

[WeatherRusty]

There's also a large contribution due to mass balance, which may fluctuate over time due to regional and local phenomena.

For instance,as Greenland looses mass due to glacial ice melt, the gravitational attraction Greenland exerts on the surroundig water is reduced. Sea level should lower around Greenland while contributing to rising seas elsewhere.

[BethesdaWX]

Why is the peer-review process pilloried by skeptics for the thousands of journal articles supporting anthropogenic climate change, but a feather in the cap of the "skeptics" when a paper supports them?

Stereotyping is immature, who are you to say this?

850 papers supporting skeptical arguments on AGW: http://www.popularte...supporting.html

There is also an additional 88 list of submitted papers, referendums, etc

All criticisms of this list have been refuted or a change made to correct the issue. Please see the notes following the list for defenses of common criticisms.

The number of skeptical peer reviewed edits have increased substantially relative to Pro-AGW in the past decade.

Want more, I can give you more.

[BethesdaWX]

For instance,as Greenland looses mass due to glacial ice melt, the gravitational attraction Greenland exerts on the surroundig water is reduced. Sea level should lower around Greenland while contributing to rising seas elsewhere.

But that is a constant, and would not weaken a trend over centuries, a trend that started in 1700 and has not accelerated.

[tacoman25]

For instance,as Greenland looses mass due to glacial ice melt, the gravitational attraction Greenland exerts on the surroundig water is reduced. Sea level should lower around Greenland while contributing to rising seas elsewhere.

But overall globally, rising CO2 should correlate well with rising sea levels, right?

[WeatherRusty]

But overall globally, rising CO2 should correlate well with rising sea levels, right?

Now you are talking about a complex indirect relationship between CO2 and sea levels. Rising CO2 does not directly melt ice. Rising CO2 does directly warm Earth's surface.

Anything which increasingly warms the ice will cause it to melt at it's margins. Much recent research suggests that a large portion of ice melt occurs from the bottom up.

[skierinvermont]

Not sure what you mean. Aren't we talking about global sea level rise?

I'm just saying that ice melt is a complex dynamic non-linear process, and there is no expectation of a 1:1 correlation to CO2. A general upwards trend, and eventual acceleration, is to be expected.

[BethesdaWX]

I'm just saying that ice melt is a complex dynamic non-linear process, and there is no expectation of a 1:1 correlation to CO2. A general upwards trend, and eventual acceleration, is to be expected.

It would not take an entire century to manifest. One trend for 300 years (since 1700) with no change, even when increasing emissions began, does not support the argument that AGW is the accelerating sea level rise if there is no alteration to the original trend.

[skierinvermont]

It would not take an entire century to manifest. One trend for 300 years (since 1700) with no change, even when increasing emissions began, does not support the argument that AGW is the accelerating sea level rise if there is no alteration to the original trend.

It has been accelerating. The 110 year trend is 1.8mm/yr, but the 30-yr trend is 3mm/yr.

Moreover it is a widely accepted fact that the earth has warmed. The logical conclusion of this warming is accelerating sea level rise. This has absolutely nothing to do with AGW... it is simply the logical (and observed) result of a warming world (which is an undeniable fact).

[OHSnow]

Keep in mind that the sea level changes are not uniform around the country and around the world.

http://www.globalcha...ents/us-impacts (page 37)

http://tidesandcurre...echrpt36doc.pdf

Sea levels are actually falling at many West Coast US stations, but have significant variability.

And going up significantly more at the East Coast stations, some in excess of 5mm/year.

The USACE article by StellarFun talked about Louisiana, and to a lesser extent Florida.

Some of the issues it mentions includes negative impact from damming, dikes, draining, and development, as well as subsidence caused by removing oil and groundwater. So, theoretically they get hit double. Once by removing the oil from the ground, and again from the CO₂ released by the oil.

The NOAA article also shows trends by decade for several stations, again with no obvious acceleration.

Of course, most of the change in sea level is due to warming of the oceans, and not due to glacier melt.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.../global/2010/13

The calculated sea surface temperature rise has also been quite linear, with not obvious acceleration.

The use of fossil fuels has been accelerating in the 20^th century.

However, the predicted non-linear response to increasing carbon dioxide levels could balance out the increasing fuel consumption, creating a linear temperature response.

And a corresponding linear steric sea level increase.

Well the decreases in sea level in Alaska are probably due to isostatic land rebound from the melting glaciers.

[BethesdaWX]

It has been accelerating. The 110 year trend is 1.8mm/yr, but the 30-yr trend is 3mm/yr.

Moreover it is a widely accepted fact that the earth has warmed. The logical conclusion of this warming is accelerating sea level rise. This has absolutely nothing to do with AGW... it is simply the logical (and observed) result of a warming world (which is an undeniable fact).

We do not have viable data in the 1800's early 1900's, so that's a moot point in your saying the trend has accelerated. Either way, stay on topic to the reference by the Peer-reviewed study.

[skierinvermont]

We do not have viable data in the 1800's early 1900's, so that's a moot point in your saying the trend has accelerated. Either way, stay on topic to the reference by the Peer-reviewed study.

Yes, actual we do. The study you have provided is not a long term global reconstruction.

Oh and you're contradicting yourself .. on the one hand you're saying we don't have enough data to reconstruct SST in the long term... on the other hand you are saying the data shows there has been no acceleration. If the data doesn't exist, how can the data show there is no acceleration?

Oh and the study in your original post includes global sea level data back to 1880.. so your claim that the data doesn't exist is bunk. I guess you didn't read the article you posted.

[BethesdaWX]

Yes, actual we do. The study you have provided is not a long term global reconstruction.

Oh and you're contradicting yourself .. on the one hand you're saying we don't have enough data to reconstruct SST in the long term... on the other hand you are saying the data shows there has been no acceleration. If the data doesn't exist, how can the data show there is no acceleration?

Oh and the study in your original post includes global sea level data back to 1880.. so your claim that the data doesn't exist is bunk. I guess you didn't read the article you posted.

Measurements and proxies are different things. "Data" is relative.

Did I ever say I agreed with them using data before 1920? Absolutely not.

In fact, I only "trust" data after 1979 in all aspects. I always use Satellite data only.....Unless I HAVE to stray, and that makes me a bit cautious.

[tacoman25]

Now you are talking about a complex indirect relationship between CO2 and sea levels. Rising CO2 does not directly melt ice. Rising CO2 does directly warm Earth's surface.

Anything which increasingly warms the ice will cause it to melt at it's margins. Much recent research suggests that a large portion of ice melt occurs from the bottom up.

Exactly. Which is why I thought there was supposed to be a strong correlation between ocean temps and sea level.

[tacoman25]

It has been accelerating. The 110 year trend is 1.8mm/yr, but the 30-yr trend is 3mm/yr.

Moreover it is a widely accepted fact that the earth has warmed. The logical conclusion of this warming is accelerating sea level rise. This has absolutely nothing to do with AGW... it is simply the logical (and observed) result of a warming world (which is an undeniable fact).

I thought you agreed with me earlier when I stated the overall evidence is that sea level rise has not been accelerating?

[skierinvermont]

I thought you agreed with me earlier when I stated the overall evidence is that sea level rise has not been accelerating?

Haha I misread your original statement.. thought it said there HAS been acceleration, which there most certainly has been over the last 100+ years.