Sea levels

This thread is for discussion of sea levels.

Views: 1064

87 Thoughts on “Sea levels

  1. THREAD on 17/10/2010 at 7:07 am said:

    Ocean Heat Content and ARGO Project

    • THREAD on 24/10/2010 at 10:29 am said:

      SIDC monthly sunspot number v HADSST2 global sea surface temp. anom.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 24/10/2010 at 10:35 am said:

      Being discussed here, @ 188

    • THREAD on 26/10/2010 at 11:24 am said:

      Sea Level Data Shatters The Hype

      Over the last five years, sea level rise rates have significantly declined, from 3.5 mm/year to 2.0 mm/year. Identical to the rise rate for the last century.

    • THREAD on 29/10/2010 at 5:42 pm said:

      Bottom Falling Out of Global Ocean Surface Temperatures?

      October 28th, 2010

    • THREAD on 26/10/2010 at 12:50 pm said:

      25% of sea-level rise is due to groundwater depletion

    • Richard C (NZ) on 10/11/2010 at 12:50 pm said:

      NOAA Global Sea Level Rise Far Below IPCC Estimates

      Posted on November 9, 2010 by stevengoddard

    • Richard C (NZ) on 27/11/2010 at 9:31 pm said:

      Sea Level Increase Well Below IPCC Predicted Rate

      New Satellite Data Confirms Skeptics Correct About Tiny Sea Level Increases: 4 Inches Per Century

      Read here and here. Climate alarmist “scientists,” such as Heidi Cullen, Barbara Boxer and Scarlett Johansson loudly proclaim that accelerating sea level rise, of anywhere from 36 inches to 240 inches, will swamp coastal areas and cause massive death and destruction.

      Fortunately for the rest of humanity, the brain-dead-bimbo brigade is totally clueless about the ongoing scientific research on sea levels and the latest empirical evidence. The most recent peer-reviewed research finds that the GRACE satellite measurements have sea levels increasing on average only 4 inches per century (1mm per year).

      This latest empirical evidence confirms what leading sea level experts and C-AGW skeptics have been saying for years: Al Gore’ian predictions of catastrophic, accelerating sea level increases are B.S.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 16/11/2010 at 10:10 am said:

      No Cause For Alarm Over Sea Level Or Ice Sheets

      By Professor Cliff Ollier, School of Earth and Environment, University of Western Australia

      John Le Mesurier’s recent article in On Line Opinion, “The Creeping Menace”, re-hashes the alarmism about rising sea levels. Much has happened, however, since Al Gore scared the world with visions of metre high seas flooding New York.

      First, there is still no proof the Earth is experiencing “dangerous” warming. Temperatures have levelled off since 1998. Many measuring locations are also located in unsuitable areas. Furthermore, the methodologies of averaging temperature are inconsistent and full of problems. This is why “Global Warming” was replaced as a slogan by “Climate Change” (nobody denies that climate changes), and more recently by “Climate Disruption” (which is impossible define or prove).

      Second, the increased temperature is supposed to increase sea level mainly by melting the ice-caps, which is impossible. Thermal expansion of the oceans seems to be of little consequence at present because the satellite measurements show the oceans are cooling. Le Mesurier gilds his picture with a few asides on “extreme climatic events” in general and hurricanes in particular. Recent studies, however, show no increase in hurricane activity in the last 40 years.

      With regard to sea level, I have come to the view the IPCC and Australian Bureau of Meteorology, run by CSIRO, are unreliable sources of data after critically assessing their statements on this subject for some time. Direct studies of sea level are showing only small rises. You can see the sea level data for yourself for the United States and a few other countries here. Most stations show a rise of sea level of about 2mm per year, but note the considerable variation even within a single state.


    • Richard C (NZ) on 16/11/2010 at 10:43 am said:

      Analysis of global linear mean sea level (MSL)
      trends, including distance-weighted averaging

      * * * D R A F T * * *

      by David A. Burton
      First version: 11-Dec-2009
      Latest version: 08-May-2010


      * Abstract
      * The Data
      o Data overview
      * Part #1 – Averaging The Data
      o Simple averages and median
      o Average weighted by geographical distances
      o Summary
      o Conclusion #1
      * Part #2 – Local Variability
      o Conclusion #2
      * Part #3 – Is the rate of sea level rise accelerating?
      o Eyeballing the tide gauge records
      o But what about Church & White?
      o Conclusion #3
      * How & Why
      * Links to more information

    • Richard C (NZ) on 17/11/2010 at 9:09 am said:

      Sea Level Falling In Europe

      Posted on November 16, 2010 by stevengoddard

      NOAA records fifty-five tide gauges in Europe. The average sea level “rise” is minus 1.08mm/year.

      Only three locations out of fifty-five are rising faster than 2mm/year. Twenty three locations have falling sea level.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 16/04/2011 at 12:44 pm said:

      Per New Australian Research, Sea Level Increases Are Decelerating, Not Accelerating As Predicted

      Read here. The IPCC Climategate scientists and alarmists have predicted that warming temperatures will cause the oceans to rise in an accelerating manner, swamping coastal areas, which will cause millions to become refugees. Fortunately for humanity, the IPCC and its government-paid minions are wrong again.

      The new Australian research actually reveals a century-long deceleration trend of sea level increases with a slight increase during the late 1990’s that fits within the normal variation over the longer term trend. This latest research confirms the findings of the recently published Houston and Dean study.

      Both of these new studies refute the IPCC reports and climate model predictions of alarming and dangerous sea level increases.

      “…indicates that “the longest continuous Australasian records, Fremantle and Auckland, situated on the western and eastern periphery of the Oceania region, respectively, exhibit remarkably similar trends in the relative 20-year moving average water level time series after 1920,” with both time series showing “a rise in mean sea level of approximately 120 mm [editor: 0.059 inches per year] between 1920 and 2000 with strong correlation (R2 >= 0.93) to fitted second-order polynomial trendlines that reflect a tendency toward a general slowing in the rise of mean sea level (or deceleration) over time on the order of 0.02-0.04 mm/year/year [editor: 0.0016 inches per year/year].” And he adds that “the Fort Denison water level time series after 1940 similarly reflects a decelerating trend in sea level rise…..notes “there is a high rate of relative sea level rise averaged over the decade centered around 1994,” but he says that this recent acceleration is “not remarkable or unusual in the context of the historical record available for each site over the course of the 20th century,” and he states that “these recent post-1990s short-term accelerations fit within the overall longer term trend of deceleration evident in the long Australasian ocean level records.”” [P. J. Watson 2011: Journal of Coastal Research]

    • Richard C (NZ) on 09/05/2011 at 11:08 pm said:

      Sea level rise is accelerating…to the downside

      May 8, 2011

      Following a long delay and some controversial “adjustments,” the University of Colorado sea level satellite data was recently released. A plot of the rate of sea level rise shows a stable rate between 2003 and 2007, and declining rates since 2007.

      See graph

      Sea levels have been rising since the peak of the last ice age 22,000 years ago and have been decelerating over the past 8,000 years.

      See graph

      See also Inconvenient Truth: Sea Level Rise is Decelerating for evidence that the rate of sea level rise also decelerated in the 20th century:

      See graph
      Global Mean Sea Level

      An Introduction Into Global Mean Sea Level, A Fallacy of Alarmism, and Beyond

      [2010 U of C GMSL graph vs 2011 updated graph]

      This is how the confusion starts in regards to GMSL.
      Both graphs show a rate of 3.1 , but use a different order of corrections.

      The first graph is from 2010, has no inverse barometer correction and no GIA application.

      The Second graph is from 2011, has the inverse barometer applied and GIA applied.

      Meaning, that in order to continue to show the same exact rate of rise, they had to modify the means by adding values to their data.

      AGAIN !

      The sea level group from UC @ Boulder have this to say about the matter:

      One important change in these releases is that we are now adding a correction of 0.3 mm/year due to Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA), so you may notice that the rate of sea level rise is now 0.3 mm/year higher than earlier releases. This is a correction to account for the fact that the global ocean basins are getting slightly larger over time as mantle material moves from under the oceans into previously glaciated regions on land. Simply subtract 0.3 mm/year if you prefer to not include the GIA correction.

      Introduction to GMSL

      Tide Gauge Data

      The First Reconstructed Series For GMSL Using Satellite Data
      Church and White et al. (2004)

      Another Reconstructed Series of GMSL Using Satellite Data
      Hamlington et al. (2010)

      Between Church et al. and Hamlington et al. we have a reconstructed GMSL rise, from 1950-2000, of 1.89 and 1.91 mm/year.

      This is a far cry from the predictions made, either in Main Stream Media journalism, or recent scientific publications.

      To suggest sea levels are going to rise beyond what either of these two paper present, is just plain ‘alarmism’.

      These two papers are the only 2 papers that are currently available published on Global Mean Sea Level.

      Satellite Data

      Sources of Error:

      Confidence Level/Accuracy Judgment:

      Limitations of the Data:


      David Burton already beat me to determining MSL, using existing tide gauges.

      Thank goodness. It would have taken me months to do the calculations.
      0.61 mm/year.

      Though before we get our hopes up, RealClimate already ‘debunked‘ him, saying that his calculations are not peer-reviewed and doesn’t take into account GIA.

      In regards to tide gauge mean sea level averages, what purpose does it serve to include an adjustment for GIA?(rhetorical)

      Tide gauges are one dimensional readings though. Simply height.

      GIA is about 3D volumetric displacement of land mass, due to uplift from ice sheet loss, and giving a value to correct a means for that displacement of land mass.

      So while we’re at it, lets adjust for subduction, sinkage, sea wave erosion, lava buildup, island construction(my favorite), and any other phenomena that adjusts the height of any given tide gauge.

      We can’t though, because each tide gauge is not effected by one or more phenomena that another tide gauge might be effected by.

      That is why the GIA correction can only be applied to satellite altimetry data.
      This only allows the alarmist community to confuse the issue, using convoluted models to support their propagandization.

      The actual, physical observance of existing tide gauges the world over show only a 0.61 mm/year rise in the historical registry.

      Which leads me to wonder where all that rise is hiding at.

      If we don’t see any physical evidence at known tide gauge sites, then all the rise must be happening wherever man is not present.

      Those 50 mile long, remote, uninhabitable beach fronts must be 10 feet under water right now.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 20/09/2011 at 9:33 pm said:

      Revisiting the Earth’s sea-level and energy budgets from 1961 to 2008

      John Alexander Church et al, 2011

      We review the sea-level and energy budgets together from 1961, using recent and updated estimates of all terms. From 1972 to 2008, the observed sea-level rise (1.8 {plus minus} 0.2 mm yr-1 from tide gauges alone and 2.1 {plus minus} 0.2 mm yr-1 from a combination of tide gauges and altimeter observations)

    • Richard C (NZ) on 27/11/2011 at 4:50 pm said:

      Sea level rise in Southwest Pacific dropped by factor of 6 during latter half of 20th century

      According to a paper published last week in the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters, the rate of sea level rise in the Southwest Pacific region (Tasmania & New Zealand) dropped by a factor of 6 from 4.2 mm/yr between 1900-1950 to only 0.7 mm/yr between 1951-2000.

      Nineteenth and twentieth century sea-level changes in Tasmania and New Zealand

      W. Roland Gehrelsa, Corresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author, S. Louise Callardb, Patrick T. Mossc, William A. Marshalla, Maarten Blaauwd, John Huntere, J. Andrew Miltonf, Mark H. Garnettg

      Positive deviations from linear sea-level trends represent important climate signals if they are persistent and geographically widespread. This paper documents rapid sea-level rise reconstructed from sedimentary records obtained from salt marshes in the Southwest Pacific region (Tasmania and New Zealand). A new late Holocene relative sea-level record from eastern Tasmania was dated by AMS14C (conventional, high precision and bomb-spike), 137Cs, 210Pb, stable Pb isotopic ratios, trace metals, pollen and charcoal analyses. Palaeosea-level positions were determined by foraminiferal analyses. Relative sea level in Tasmania was within half a metre of present sea level for much of the last 6000 yr. Between 1900 and 1950 relative sea level rose at an average rate of 4.2 ± 0.1 mm/yr. During the latter half of the 20th century the reconstructed rate of relative sea-level rise was 0.7 ± 0.6 mm/yr. Our study is consistent with a similar pattern of relative sea-level change recently reconstructed for southern New Zealand. The change in the rate of sea-level rise in the SW Pacific during the early 20th century was larger than in the North Atlantic and could suggest that northern hemisphere land-based ice was the most significant melt source for global sea-level rise.

      ► Salt marshes in Tasmania and New Zealand record rapid recent sea-level rise. ► Throughout the last 6000 yr sea levels were relatively stable. ► Sea level started rising substantially between 1880 and 1900. ► The rate of sea-level rise in Tasmania between 1900 and 1950 was 4.2 ± 0.1 mm/yr. ► Early 20th century sea-level rise may be attributed to Northern Hemisphere ice melt.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 08/01/2012 at 11:54 am said:

      A paper published today in the Journal of Geophysical Research analyzes sea level change from 10 New Zealand tide gauges and finds the sea level rise over the past 50 years to be only 1.7 mm/yr [i.e. less than 7 inches per century] with no evidence of acceleration. [Figure 3 on abstract page shows no evidence of acceleration]

      JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 117, C01004, 7 PP., 2012

      Regional sea level trends in New Zealand

      Key Points

      * A simple technique for determining sea level change from sparse historical data
      * New analysis of decadal and interdecadal sea level variability in New Zealand
      * New data on the spatial variability of sea level change in New Zealand

      John Hannah

      Robert G. Bell

  2. val majkus on 20/10/2010 at 1:28 pm said:

    This is my favourite paper on sea levels
    Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total Fraud is an interview in 2007 between Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner the head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden. Dr Morner has been past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission
    on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project. The lead in to the article says ‘He has been studying the sea level and its effects on coastal areas for
    some 35 years.
    I like this quote on page 4 “we geologists work with observations, and
    the observations do not fit with these scenarios. So what
    should you change? We cannot change observations, so we
    have to change the scenarios!
    Instead of doing this, they give an endless amount of money
    to the side which agrees with the IPCC. The European
    Community, which has gone far in this thing: If you want a
    grant for a research project in climatology, it is written into the
    document that there must be a focus on global warming. All
    the rest of us, we can never get a coin there, because we are
    not fulfilling the basic obligations. That is really bad, because
    then you start asking for the answer you want to get. That’s
    what dictatorships did, autocracies. They demanded that scientists
    produce what they wanted.’

  3. val majkus on 20/10/2010 at 1:45 pm said:

    Dr Morner of course has been described as ‘a crackpot’ by alarmists; he wrote a very amusing letter to the President of the Maldives printed in The Spectator’ last year; you can find it here

    Dear Mr President,

    You are obviously very concerned about the effect that sea level rises may have on the Maldives. Your Cabinet has been photographed meeting underwater, and you have even declared that ‘we are going to die’ if the climate change summit in Copenhagen fails. I am now writing with what I hope will be some good news. The scientific side of the situation is quite different to that which you imagine. You are, in fact, not going to die.

    Before I continue, I should perhaps state my credentials. I have been a sea-level specialist for 40 years. I launched most of its new theories in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. I solved the problem of the gravitational potential surface, the theory that it changes with time; the rotation of the earth, how it affected the redistribution of the oceans’ masses — and so on. Last year, I was awarded a prize from Algarve university for my ‘irreverence and contribution to our understanding of sea level change’.

    We both know that the 1,200 islands of the Maldives are all low-lying with the highest point only some 2.5m (8ft) above sea level. Hence, your nation is vulnerable to extreme storms, tsunamis — and, of course, any possible sea level rise.

    The IPCC vision is a rise that by the year 2100 may amount to between 30cm and 50cm. This is based on model calculations. Our figure is a 5cm rise, plus or minus 15cm. In a newspaper article, you have suggested that sea levels may rise by between one and eight metres. Those figures, however, do not concur with the physics and known rates of ice melting. So those figures must be dismissed as impossible.

    I have been on no fewer than six different field expeditions to the Maldives. We worked in the lagoon, we drilled in the sea, we drilled in lakes, we looked at the shore morphology — many different environments. We have always found the same thing: a total stability for the last 30 years, preceded by a 20cm drop in sea level in the 1970s.

    We have presented a detailed documentation of the sea level changes in the Maldives over the past 4,000 years. The record of the last 500 years may be of special interest to the situation of your islanders. It shows:

    The people of the Maldives had no problems surviving the 17th century, which was 50cm higher than now. Nor the last century, where it rose by 20cm. This bodes well for their prospects of surviving the next change.

    I recently visited Bangladesh, a country cursed by floods. In the Sundarban delta, I documented very strong coastal erosion despite zero changes in sea level. So, even here, there is no global sea level rise going on today — just as in the Maldives, in Tuvalu and in Vanuatu, to mention a few famous sites claimed already to be in the process of becoming flooded.

    By the end of this century, sea level may have risen by between 30cm and 50cm according to the various IPCC scenarios. Our records suggest a maximum of 20cm. Neither of those levels would pose any real problem — simply a return to the situation in the 17th and the 19th to early 20th centuries, respectively.

    So why the scare-mongering? Could it be because there is money involved? If you inhabit a tiny island and can convince the world that its very existence is under threat because of the polluting policies of the West, the industrialised nations will certainly respond. The money is likely to flow in more quickly than the ocean will rise.

    This is the fourth time I have written to you. Unfortunately, I think there is a problem with your email service because so far I have not received an acknowledgement. For this reason, I have decided to write this open letter in the pages of The Spectator.

    So, Mr President, you and your ministers in the Maldives really don’t need to worry about a future life beneath the waves. You should pass on this message to the people of the Maldives. It is high time to release them from this terrible psychological burden.

    Nils-Axel Mörner

  4. val majkus on 13/11/2010 at 1:38 pm said:

    From the Australian Climate Science Coalition

    Posted: 13th November 2010
    Professor Cliff Ollier critiques a recent article at OnLine Opinion. Of particluar interest is the highlighting of the alarmist theories accepted by the Victorian government in their Future Coasts program. the result of which is affecting real people now in Victoria and their plans for the future.

    “John Le Mesurier’s recent article in On Line Opinion, “The Creeping Menace”, re-hashes the alarmism about rising sea levels. Much has happened, however, since Al Gore scared the world with visions of metre high seas flooding New York.

    First, there is still no proof the Earth is experiencing “dangerous” warming. Temperatures have levelled off since 1998. Many measuring locations are also located in unsuitable areas. Furthermore, the methodologies of averaging temperature are inconsistent and full of problems. This is why “Global Warming” was replaced as a slogan by “Climate Change” (nobody denies that climate changes), and more recently by “Climate Disruption” (which is impossible define or prove).”

    Link to the article

  5. val majkus on 13/11/2010 at 1:48 pm said:

    Okay I know I’ve mentioned Dr Morner before but I didn’t know he’d written ‘The Greatest Lie Ever Told’
    article here at Warwick Hughes blog

  6. Richard C (NZ) on 30/11/2010 at 3:08 pm said:

    Annual Sea Level Increases – MM’s Per Year

    Science and Empirical Evidence versus The Fantasy of Predictions

    Featuring James Hansen’s extreme outlier

    C3 Headlines article

  7. Richard C (NZ) on 30/11/2010 at 4:16 pm said:

    Rahmstorf (2009): Off the mark again (part 10). Sea level projections exaggerated by factor of 2

    November 28, 2010

    In my last post I pointed out that VR2009 used out-date sea-level data from Church and White, and did not include a correction for groundwater depletion. Even if you believe the validity of their very dubious model, these two flaws cause VR2009?s projections of sea level rise for the 21st century to be overstated by a factor of two.


  8. Richard C (NZ) on 03/12/2010 at 10:21 am said:

    Scientists probe beneath Antarctic ice shelves

    NIWA Media Release 22 November 2010

    NIWA looks below Antarctic ice shelves to investigate the polar ocean system with a new high-tech probe.

    NIWA’s new Ice Tethered Profiler (ITP) places NIWA at the forefront of polar oceanography. It gives NIWA, and international scientists, insight into the interaction between the ocean, Antarctica’s sea ice, and ice shelves – thereby unlocking mysteries in Antarctic polar oceanography.

    NIWA transported the ITP to Antarctica. It was deployed by NIWA scientist Craig Stewart, and IRL’s Tim Haskell. The very first set of data from below the ice was sent via satellite on 19 November 2010.

    It will provide NIWA with the first-ever year-round data set of what is happening beneath the ice in McMurdo Sound. The ITP collects temperature and salinity profiles. This information is relayed in real-time, via satellite, to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute website.

    This will lead to a better understanding of the interactions between the ice sheet, the oceans, and what contribution this is making to sea-level rise. We are trying to understand how the ice shelf interaction is changing over time,” says NIWA oceanographer, Dr Mike Williams.


  9. Richard C (NZ) on 08/02/2011 at 7:10 pm said:

    Determining the True “Acceleration” of Sea Level Rise

    The Inconvenient Skeptic

    When I previously discussed that 2010 will likely show a significant drop in the global sea level I also stated that the rate of rise was decreasing. I spent some time trying to find a good way to portray the accuracy of that statement. It occurred to me that perhaps the best way to do so was to determine the “acceleration” of the sea level rise. If one thinks of the the change in sea level as a “speed” then the acceleration would be the rate at which the velocity is changing. The end result is surprising and in the end I have a definitive acceleration rate for the sea level rise. Unfortunately it is not one that the warmists will like, but the numbers are strikingly clear.


    ……….I plotted the instantaneous rate of rise over the period of time and then determined the acceleration (mm/yr2) of the sea level change.

    So the warmists are certainly correct. The rate of sea level change is strongly accelerating, in the negative direction.

    The actual acceleration is -0.13 (mm/yr2).

    At this acceleration rate the sea level will peak in 2025 at an average level of 40mm higher than it was in 2000. By 2050 the sea level will once again be the same as it was in 2000. By the year 2100 the sea level will be 361 mm lower than it is today. For fun I projected out the sea level for the next 90 years assuming the current acceleration is constant for that period of time.

  10. Richard C (NZ) on 17/02/2011 at 10:34 pm said:

    Had a chuckle at Bryan Walker’s HT article “Here comes the flood”.

    A more appropriate title would be “Here comes the virtual flood”.

  11. Richard C (NZ) on 27/04/2011 at 7:51 pm said:

    EU Satellite Documents Huge Sea Level Decline That U.S. Scientists Refuse To Discuss or Publish

    Read here. Imagine you’re a scientist studying sea levels, and your career and research funding depends on proving that global warming is causing accelerating sea level increases. Now imagine the satellites and mother nature don’t cooperate with your agenda, and the seas stop rising and actually produce a significant and visible satellite record that the oceans’ levels declined. In your mind you’re probably thinking, “I’m screwed.”

    So what do you do? Are you tempted to not publish the new data hoping for a miraculous sea level increase, like really, really soon? Is that why American scientists are not releasing the latest satellite results, taking a clue from their corrupted Climategate friends across the pond – sort of a “hide the decline” of satellite measurements mentality? (Hey, maybe the delay is really the lame excuse they have been providing to WUWT – who knows.)

    Not all scientists are of the same ilk, though. The researchers at AVISO have kept on publishing the inconvenient satellite measurements, much to their credit. Not only are the AVISO researchers more timely (more honest?), they also deliver a better product than their U.S. counterparts.


    • Richard C (NZ) on 24/05/2011 at 11:52 pm said:

      Sea Level Decline During The “Hottest Year Ever” With “Record Greenland Melt”

      Posted on May 22, 2011 by stevengoddard

      See graph

      Europe’s Envisat satellite measured a drop in sea level of almost 20 mm since the beginning of 2010, and is now lower than at the start of their record eight years ago.

      Meanwhile, back at Hansen’s global warming propaganda factory, they were telling us :

      Record Melting in Greenland during 2010

      2010 Is Officially the Hottest Year on Record

      If Greenland had record melt and the Earth was the hottest it has ever been, why did sea level decline dramatically back to pre-2004 levels? If Greenland were melting at rates never seen before, sea level should be shooting through the roof, not dropping like a rock. Where did all the record meltwater go? Where did all the additional heat in the oceans go?

      Either these people are grossly incompetent or they are fabricating data.

  12. Richard C (NZ) on 11/06/2011 at 10:25 pm said:

    Hannah dismisses Hansen’s alarmist rant (and credit to The Press reporter David Williams for getting a second opinion).

    Reporting a public lecture at the University of Canterbury.

    “Hansen says a multi-metre sea level rise is possible this century”

    “But not everyone agrees.

    Professor John Hannah, a former dean of the National Surveying School at University of Otago, has been at the forefront of New Zealand’s research into sea level rise for 20 years.

    He says New Zealand tide gauges are showing a 1.7mm average sea level rise over the last 100 years.

    “The tide gauges are not showing acceleration at this stage,” he says.

    “There would have to be a dramatic change to get [a rise of] more than a metre in the next 90 years.”

    Hannah concedes there have been times in geological history when sea level globally, and in New Zealand, rose by 10mm a year and higher, meaning a metre of sea level rise this century is possible.

    But at the moment that’s just not happening, he says.

    “If we’re not seeing it at this moment and we haven’t been seeing it for the last 20 to 30 years, then I think the probability of getting anything close to a metre by the turn of the century is very unlikely.”

    Hannah might pooh-pooh Hansen’s predictions.

    But he says it is still prudent for authorities to review regulations for minimum floor heights.

    Ministry for the Environment guidelines say councils need to consider sea-level rise of 0.5m to 2100 as a base value, and the consequences of a 0.8m rise, in their long-term planning.

    Hannah says that’s sound advice.

    “They would want to consider whether or not 0.5m to 0.8m would create significant problems for Christchurch, and I suspect it would in some areas,” he says.

    “If you’re already getting issues then they’re not going to get any better.” ”

  13. Ron on 08/07/2011 at 9:31 am said:

    Good to see Prof. Hannah’s sober assessment in the ODT this time:

    Let’s hope it helps to attenuate the alarmism hyped by some emotional Councillors here in Dunedin.

  14. Richard C (NZ) on 17/09/2011 at 10:23 am said:

    Sea Level Continues Its Historic Decline

    Posted on September 15, 2011 by Steven Goddard

    The latest sea level numbers are out, and Envisat shows that the two year long decline is continuing, at a rate of 5mm per year.

    No doubt Al Gore will pass this good news on to all his viewers this afternoon. James Hansen​ expects sea level to rise a few mm per day, towards the end of the century. No natural heat source has been discovered which could produce enough heat to melt that much ice, so perhaps aliens will zap Greenland with laser beams.

    [See graphic]

  15. Douglas Field on 17/09/2011 at 1:34 pm said:

    I have read in a report about the coast around Dunedin that the sea level has not changed to any noticeable degree over the laast 60 or so years. Can anyone tell me

    1.what empirical evidence is there of sea level rise around New Zealand coasts and
    2.can they quantify this
    3 can thay quote the source of the evidence.


    • Richard C (NZ) on 17/09/2011 at 3:51 pm said:

      Douglas, your questions:-

      1.what empirical evidence is there of sea level rise around New Zealand coasts

      The latest paper is Hannah, Bell and Paulik (2011) “Auckland: A Case Study in the Regional Assessment of Long-Term Sea Level Change”. The paper is specific to Auckland in the title but it is national and global in context and presents the evidence.

      2.can they quantify this

      Yes, 1.4 mm/yr at Auckland (depending on adjustments), consistent with the best global-averaged absolute sea-level rise of 1.7 ± 0.3 mm/yr

      3 can thay quote the source of the evidence.

      Yes, see the References and this quote:-

      The post 1899 sea level data used in this study are described in Hannah (1990, 2004 and 2008). To these data files the additional data for 2008 and 2009 were added. All hourly data were processed into monthly and annual MSLs using the University of Hawaii’s SPLR2 software (c.f., Caldwell, 2000). It is these monthly and annual means that were used in the analyses to be described in the coming sections. It is important to note that a correction of 0.5 ft (0.152 m) has been made to all post 1973 data (when the tide gauge zero was altered), to ensure that all data refer to the same datum. Further details regarding the tide gauges used and the data collected can be found in Hannah et al (2010)

      Sea level rise is averaged so that some locations will show greater rise than the average and some less. Only a check of the data from the local Dunedin tide guage will verify the report you have read – I can’t help you with that but I very much doubt there has been no rise in 60 years. Sea level rise is completely normal on a millennium scale (see Hannah, Bell and Paulik).


      Richard Cumming

    • Douglas Field on 17/09/2011 at 5:18 pm said:

      Thank you

    • Douglas Field on 17/09/2011 at 5:40 pm said:

      The report did not say that there was no sea level rise but rather that it had not changed to a noticeable degree. I expect that ‘noticeable’ needs definition. 75mm over 60 years may not be noticed by most people but it is plainly a measurable degree.


    • Richard C (NZ) on 17/09/2011 at 8:21 pm said:

      That makes sense now. I was so busy addressing your numbered questions that I missed the subtlety in your intro.

      Yes, storm surges and king tides would easily obscure 75mm over 60 years – along with the odd tsunami. And who is resident at one place on the coast for that time and monitors the difference by eye?

      I think there’s an MSL mark chiseled into a rock by Captain Cook’s crew at Botany Bay (or somewhere) that’s well above today’s level. It’s been topical recently in Australia with all the alarming reports coming out there recently. I’ll see if I can find a link when I’ve got time and inclination (may even be a link up-thread)

    • Richard C (NZ) on 17/09/2011 at 9:48 pm said:

      Might have been a Mean High Tide mark – whatever it was I can’t find a link. I’ve made a query at JoNova so maybe someone will come up with something.

    • Douglas,

      Richard C cites Hannah (2011) and in addition there is Hannah (2004) An updated analysis of long-term sea level change in New Zealand, published in Geophysical Research Letters and already posted online here. From the abstract (emphasis added):

      These new results indicate that relative sea levels in New Zealand have been rising at an average rate of 1.6 mm/yr over the last 100 years – a figure that is not only within the error bounds of the original determination, but when corrected for glacial-isostatic effects [producing a net average rate of rise of 2.1 mm/yr – see Conclusion] has a high level of coherency with other regional and global sea level rise determinations. There continues to be no evidence of any acceleration in relative sea levels over the record period.

      In addition, there’s a note about the Dunedin record you ask about (emphasis added):

      While the new analysis does lead to a significantly lower estimate of sea level rise at one gauge (Dunedin), the overall low quality of the data from this gauge suggests that this particular result should be treated with some care – an issue that has lead to its downweighting in final calculations.

  16. Douglas Field on 18/09/2011 at 8:32 am said:

    You might be referring to this one mentioned by John L Daly:

    “These claims are based primarily on statistical probability models and are unsupportable when viewed in the context of other physical and documentary evidence available surrounding the benchmark. The study claims the benchmark was originally set 44.5cm above the mean level of the sea (as it then existed in 1841). Since it now sits at 31.5 cm above (see fig.1), the difference – 13cm – is claimed to be evidence of sea level rise.
    However, the man responsible for putting the mark there, explorer Sir James Clark Ross stated explicitly and several times in his 1846 book [3] that the mark was placed at MSL (as he estimated it to be), not at a point 44.5cm above, near the high tide point, as claimed by the study. Other evidence surrounding the original placing of the benchmark is less clear, but we do have one positive measurement of where the benchmark stood relative to sea level taken in 1888 by the then Government meteorologist, Commander J. Shortt R.N. He found the mark to be 34cm above sea level – only 2½ cm different to its current position [7] [5].

    This suggests a sea level rise since 1888 of only 2½cm, not 13cm as claimed by the study. This small rise of 2½ cm is fully consistent with a survey of long-term tide gauges [15] around the Australian coast carried out recently by the National Tidal Facility in Adelaide, which found a sea level rise rate of only 0.3 mm/yr, equivalent to a sea level rise of 3cm over a century. Even the current sea level in the inner cove (Mason Cove) of Port Arthur itself is lower than that indicated by a tide gauge [6] which the study claims existed there in the early 1840s.”


  17. Richard C (NZ) on 01/10/2011 at 4:15 pm said:

    Sea level rise projections bias

    Dr David Stockwell

    Sea levels, recently updated with 10 new data-points, reinforce the hiatus described as a ‘pothole’ by Josh Willis of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., who says you can blame the pothole on the cycle of El Niño and La Niña in the Pacific:

    This temporary transfer of large volumes of water from the oceans to the land surfaces also helps explain the large drop in global mean sea level. But they also expect the global mean sea level to begin climbing again.

    [See plot]

    Attributing the ‘pothole’ to a La Nina and the transfer of water from the ocean to land in Australia and the Amazon seems dubious, given many land areas experienced reduced rainfall at the same times, as shown above.

    [See plot]

    A quadratic model of sea-level indicates deceleration is now well-established and highly significant, and if present conditions continue, sea level will peak between 2020 and 2050 between 10mm and 40mm above present levels, and may have stopped rising already.

    Reference to a ‘pothole’ in a long-term trend caused by short-term La Nina, while ignoring statistically significant overall deceleration, is another example of bias in climate science.

  18. Richard C (NZ) on 15/10/2011 at 8:34 am said:

    Hiding The Inconvenient Satellite

    by Steven Goddard

    [See blink comparator]

    The most sophisticated sea level satellite is Envisat. It doesn’t show any sea level rise since it was launched in 2002, so our friends in the sea level community tried to hide it by painting it almost invisible yellow and not normalising the data properly.

    The animation above corrects those problems, and shows how completely bogus the claimed trend is.


  19. Richard C (NZ) on 16/10/2011 at 8:24 am said:

    Sea levels not rising: Swedish scientist

    Contrary to prevailing scientific opinion, a Climate Change conference organised by the University of Mumbai and the Liberty Institute, New Delhi, and INSTUCEN India study centre on Friday claimed that the sea levels were not rising and carbon dioxide did not pose a special threat to the climate. Sea levels in the Indian Ocean were not rising and cities like Mumbai, islands like Maldives or Tuvalu would not be affected at all, speakers stated.

    The audience clapped at every statement made by Professor Nils-Axel Morner, retired professor from Stockholm University, who enlightened a large group of appreciative students and professors on the perils of the estimates of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He attacked Maldives president Mohammed Nasheed’s claims that his island nation was drowning and said this was totally unfounded in observational reality. The one-day conference, “Shifting science and changing policy,” was hosted by the Centre for Extra Mural Studies at Mumbai University.


    Nils Finn Munch-Petersen of the Nordic Institute of Asian Studies too said Maldives was marketing its sea level rise and this had led to a significant income for the island nation in the form of foreign aid while huge international resorts were being built there. “The presumed sea rise does not deter foreign investors.”

    Message to Maldives president Mohammed Nasheed: your claims are BS

    Anything coming out of the mouths of Maldives officials related to climate, CO2, or sea level is pure bullshit.

    The only purpose of it is to continue to paint Maldives as a victim, so they’ll get some of that climate cash promised by the fools that attend these climate conferences. Meanwhile, they continue to expand their travel industry, built new resorts, build new airports, and promote tourism while laughing all the way to the bank.

    Thinking people should cross the Maldives off their vacation possibilities list. I have, I refuse to go there, even if offered a free trip, because these grifters are playing victims at the expense of taxpayers everywhere.

    The development going on in the Maldives is quite a contrast to this retarded thinking in Australia


  20. Richard C (NZ) on 04/11/2011 at 7:06 pm said:

    “Dr Church said sea-level rise and ocean warming had continued to accelerate as concentrations of greenhouse gases increased.”

    Read more:

    Must be true.- he’s a CSIRO scientist

    • Andy on 04/11/2011 at 7:58 pm said:

      Dr Church said sea-level rise and ocean warming had continued to accelerate as concentrations of greenhouse gases increased.

      The team’s findings were published in the American journal Geophysical Research Letters.

      Really? Shame they don’t provide a link.

      So many names, so little time…

  21. Richard C (NZ) on 13/11/2011 at 12:36 pm said:

    Saw this at Hot Topic so decided to check it out (apologies for the link but it’s for future reference):-

    Thomas November 13, 2011 at 8:40 am

    “In spite of all the bluster Thomas, the world’s climate is not behaving as the IPCC models have projected.”

    You are right Bennydale the climate is not behaving like the conservative estimates of the IPPC would have had us hope.
    The observations are now past the worst scale margins of the last IPPC prognosis in several measures.

    Thomas links to “Is the IPCC alarmist?”:-

    See:- “IPPC to Realty comparison” [Copenhagen Diagnosis 2009].:


    A detailed paper comparing IPPC expectations to reality:

    Figure 3 in the first link, Sea Level Rise – models and observations, purports to show that IPCC projections are below observations. Something about the plot did not ring true and after some deliberation I think I see what’s wrong being guided by my previous assessment that the IPCC least case AR4 B1 scenario is realistic (1.8 – 3.8 mm/yr – ho-hum, no alarm) and in line with tide guages and satellites (now 3,2 mm/yr) except for recent deceleration in observations.

    Most of the other IPCC projections should therefore be above the observations/B1 trend but in Figure 3 they are all below – how so?

    The then satellite trend was 3.4 mm/yr giving 34 mm/decade or 3.4 cm/decade. Figure 3 however shows 6+ cm Sea Level Change 1990 – 2010 for satellites (that’s OK) AND the IPCC worst case scenario (that’s not OK). Problem is that the upper limit of the AR4 worst case scenario (A1F1) is 5.9 mm/decade giving 11.8 cm change 1990 – 2010:

    The range of the IPCC AR4 Projections at 2010 on Figure 3 would be 3.6 cm (2 x 1,8) to 11.8 cm (2 x 5.9). Figure 3 observations are in the lower half of that range but the SkepticalScience article says: “Sea level is likely to rise much more by 2100 than the often-cited range of 18-59 centimetres from the IPCC AR4”.

    The Copenhagen Diagnosis was prepared by Climate Change Research Centre
    UNSW Sydney NSW. The report should be cited as:

    The Copenhagen Diagnosis, 2009: Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science.
    I. Allison, N.L. Bindoff, R.A. Bindschadler, P.M. Cox, N. de Noblet, M.H. England, J.E. Francis, N.
    Gruber, A.M. Haywood, D.J. Karoly, G. Kaser, C. Le Quéré, T.M. Lenton, M.E. Mann, B.I. McNeil,
    A.J. Pitman, S. Rahmstorf, E. Rignot, H.J. Schellnhuber, S.H. Schneider, S.C. Sherwood, R.C.J.
    Somerville, K. Steffen, E.J. Steig, M. Visbeck, A.J. Weaver. The University of New South Wales
    Climate Change Research Centre (CCRC), Sydney, Australia, 60pp.

    The “Latest Climate Science” seems to be TAR when it suits – not AR4.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 13/11/2011 at 2:32 pm said:

      The TAR Global average sea level rise 1990 to 2100 for the SRES scenarios is Figure 11.12: Working Group I Chapter 11

      Extrapolating the obs 3.2 mm/yr linear trend over 110 yrs gives a 0.35 m rise 1990 -2100 (B1 0.3 m TAR). That puts the obs current linear rise in the middle of the SRES 2100 even though it may well be at the top in 2010 due to the comparison of obs linear vs accelerating SRES.

      SkepticalScience would have us believe that the obs 3.2 mm/yr linear trend is an “accelerating” trend: “Satellite and tide-gauge measurements show that sea level rise is accelerating faster than expected”. Not quite, the comparison just shows that observations (sans Envisat) over 1990 – 2010 are a generally monotonic trend that has a steeper linear slope than an instantaneous slope at 2010 of the expected accelerating .SRES curve i.e. the range of the average of AOGCMs for all 35 SRES scenarios does not match reality as early as 2010.

      Wonder how SkepticalScience explains the recent deceleration of TopexJASON and the plummeting Envisat since 3rd quarter 2009?

  22. Richard C (NZ) on 23/11/2011 at 8:28 am said:

    Jason Sea Level Data Is Useless

    Posted on November 20, 2011 by Steven Goddard

    Jason 1​ reports that sea level is rising over 3mm/year, which is due almost entirely to a huge nonsensical bulge north of Australia. Below I plotted their error – the difference between Jason reported data and NOAA tide gauge data. PMSML data is more complete and shows the same thing.

    [See plots]


    Steven has posted on this previously and I thought it was already up-thread but no.

  23. Richard C (NZ) on 02/12/2011 at 7:51 am said:

    Climate change science being stifled by NSW Labor bureaucrats

    * by: Malcolm Holland
    * From: The Daily Telegraph
    * December 02, 2011 12:00AM

    SENIOR bureaucrats in the state government’s environment department have routinely stopped publishing scientific papers which challenge the federal government’s claims of sea level rises threatening Australia’s coastline, a former senior public servant said yesterday.

    Doug Lord helped prepare six scientific papers which examined 120 years of tidal data from a gauge at Fort Denison in Sydney Harbour.

    The tide data revealed sea levels were rising at a rate of about 1mm a year or less – and the rise was not accelerating but was constant.

    “The tidal data we found would mean sea levels would rise by about 100mm by the end of the century,” Mr Lord said yesterday.

    “However the (federal) government benchmark which drives their climate change policy is that sea levels are expected to rise by 900mm by the end of the century and the rate of rise is accelerating.”

    Mr Lord, who has 35 years experience in coastal engineering, said senior bureaucrats within the then Department of Environment Climate Change and Water had rejected or stopped publication of five papers between late 2009 and September this year.

    “This was very thorough research, peer reviewed and getting the highest ranking from various people, and one of the papers got a nine out of 10 for the quality of the work,” he said.

    “You have to ask yourself why they were rejected, considering they had been peer reviewed, and the Fort Denison tide data is among the longest continuous data of its type available in the world.


    • Richard C (NZ) on 06/12/2011 at 9:40 am said:

      Australian sea level rises exaggerated by 8 fold (or maybe ten)

      The Daily Telegraph exposed the NSW state government protecting the world from some dangerous scientific analysis of sea-levels. The officials pulled papers and posters within days of when they were due to be released, late in September 2011. Doug Lord examined 120 years of tidal data from Sydney Harbour, and found a 1 mm year on year rise which didn’t fit with the 900 mm rise projected by the Wizards of Climate Change at the Department. He finds the official figures exaggerate ten fold.

      Ken Stewart has taken the dangerous data from 19 sites around Australia and finds it averaged 1.4 mm/year over the last 100 years. He finds about an 8-fold exaggeration. This is another sordid tale in the Science-perverted-for-PR category.


  24. Richard C (NZ) on 22/01/2012 at 8:28 am said:

    Sea Level Rise During The Hottest Year Ever

    Posted on January 20, 2012 by Steven Goddard

    [See Jason plot, Envisat similar]

    According to NASA’s Dr. Hansen, 2010 was the hottest year ever, and Greenland temperatures were also the hottest ever. We are told this led to record melt in Greenland, which caused massive amounts of water to pour into the ocean. Additionally, thermal expansion from the record heat caused the oceans to get much deeper.

    Satellite data shows us that sea level has been falling steadily since the start of 2010, which tells us that the missing water and the missing heat must be hiding at the bottom of the ocean – along with the missing intelligence and integrity of government scientists.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 23/01/2012 at 12:58 pm said:

      I’ve been curious as to why the U of C GMSL trend has not changed from 3.2 mm/yr even though 36 datapoints are added each year so I’ve plotted the most recent TOPEX/Jason and Envisat data to see what the story is,.Excel Workbook here (will be updated with changes):- (email me for access).

      TOPEX/Jason data from “Raw data (ASCII)” link:-

      Envisat data:-

      U of C Global Mean Sea Level page:-

      Sure enough, the U of C 3.2 mm/yr trend is from a superseded dataset that I used when I last updated my TOPEX/Jason GMSL plot early 2011 (2011.0673). Data now available from the “Raw data (ASCII)” link is a DIFFERENT dataset with DIFFERENT trends and U of C has failed to update their current GMSL trend. Envisat’s 2011 data is 86% up-to-date but U of C has only 70% of 2011 data (what’s the holdup?).

      Current trends for TOPEX/Jason (Envisat) are:-

      +3.37 mm/yr to 2011.6917 [note the deceleration after 2010 below]

      +3.57 mm/yr to 2010.1714

      +2.03 mm/yr 2003.9816 to 2011.6917 (+0.0004 mm/yr 2003.976717 to 2011.862646)

      The last Jason-1 start date (2003.9816) is comparable to Envisat series start (2003.976717).

      More to come but work to chase right now.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 23/01/2012 at 4:01 pm said:

      Jason-1/2 (Envisat) GMSL trends continued:-

      2.4 mm/yr 2003.9816 to 2010.5914 (+0.0013 mm/yr 2003.976717 to 2009.786492)

      -1.97 mm/yr 2010.1714 to 2011.6917 (-0.004 mm/yr 2009.796452 to 2011.862646)

      As Dr Roy Spencer says, the polynomial trends shown on GMSL.xls are for entertainment purposes only and should not be used for prediction.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 23/01/2012 at 5:43 pm said:

      “2.4 mm/yr 2003.9816 to 2010.5914” should read:-

      2.4 mm/yr 2003.9816 to [2010.1714]

      Dropbox version of GMSL.xls will be updated to reflect these corrections (manually by me – I haven’t “synched” it).

    • Richard C (NZ) on 23/01/2012 at 8:41 pm said:

      Dropbox GMSL.xls now synching automatically.

    • Andy on 23/01/2012 at 9:30 pm said:

      Yes I am getting your updates via dropbox, thanks

    • Richard C (NZ) on 24/01/2012 at 2:57 pm said:

      Validation and estimation of MSL altimetry errors

      Comparison with in-situ measurements [Caution: errors]

      The measurement drifts obtained with the tide gauges (see figure below) reveal very small drifts for Jason-1 and T/P, respectively close to -0.10 mm/year and [0.33] mm/year with however the possible detection of a leap of a few millimetres in the Topex MSL at the end of 1996. On the other hand the drift obtained with the Envisat MSL is more significant, approximately [-1.94] mm/year. This is currently being investigated and could possibly be explained by stability problems for the correction of the wet troposphere and instrument corrections.

      See plot


      Evolution of differences between altimetry sea surface heights and SSHs from tide gauges for the Topex/Poseidon, Jason-1 and Envisat missions after having applied a low-pass filter (two months).

      “This is currently being investigated”

      So do we add +1.94 mm/yr to Envisat trends meantime?

    • Richard C (NZ) on 24/01/2012 at 3:24 pm said:

      Adding a +1.94 mm/yr drift correction to Envisat trends – TJ (EN)

      +2.03 mm/yr 2003.9816 to 2011.6917 (+0.0004 mm/yr 2003.976717 to 2011.862646)


      +2.03 mm/yr 2003.9816 to 2011.6917 (+1.94 mm/yr 2003.976717 to 2011.862646)


      2.4 mm/yr 2003.9816 to 2010.1714 (+0.0013 mm/yr 2003.976717 to 2009.786492)


      +2.4 mm/yr 2003.9816 to 2010.1714 (+1.94 mm/yr 2003.976717 to 2009.786492)


      -1.97 mm/yr 2010.1714 to 2011.6917 (-0.004 mm/yr 2009.796452 to 2011.862646)


      -1.97 mm/yr 2010.1714 to 2011.6917 (+1.94 mm/yr 2009.796452 to 2011.862646)

      Looks sensible to me. Just makes J-2 look bad over last 2 yrs.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 11/02/2012 at 6:59 pm said:

      I’ve updated GMSL.xls now in Dropbox ‘Public’ folder here:-

      The top plot shows TOPEX/Jason linear trends:-

      1.85 mm/yr (prior to 1998 El Nino and consistent with tide guages)

      3.7 mm/yr (1998 El Nino to beginning of 2005 – big thermosteric boost)

      1.7 mm/yr (post 2005, back to tide guages long-term trend).

      Also in the Public folder is GMSL EMD.xls using older data that returns a similar result

    • Richard C (NZ) on 15/02/2012 at 8:16 pm said:

      Jason-2 update data is now available to 2011.9631 (10 new datapoints, 0.27 yr).

      3.34mm/yr 1992.9595 to 2011.9631

      1.76mm/yr 2005.1761 to 2011.9631

      -0.13mm/yr 2010.1714 to 2011.9631 (Envisat -0.004mm/yr 2009.796 to 2011.8626)


      Having done that I’ve just noticed that UofC have “adjusted” the previous data e.g.

      Was (version to 2011.6917)
      1992.9595 -4.889
      1992.9866 -6.913
      1993.0138 -9.165
      1993.0409 -12.178
      1993.0681 -11.172

      Now (#version_2012_rel1 includes 2011.7188 to 2011.9631)
      1992.9595 -4.783
      1992.9866 -6.859
      1993.0138 -9.163
      1993.0409 -12.222
      1993.0681 -11.252

      These 2 versions came from the same UofC ‘Raw data (ASCII)’ link

      Can’t take your eye off these coots. I’ll re-data, re-plot and re-trend GMSL.xls soon.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 15/02/2012 at 11:14 pm said:

      Asked this at WUWT in the hope of enlightenment:-

      I’ve subtracted the previous dataset from the latest version and turns out there’s effectively been a +0.259mm/yr (0.007x*37) trend adjustment introduced from 2009.004 to 2011.6917 when the previous dataset ended.

      The changes are both up and down so I don’t see how it can be GIA.

      What’s up with that?

    • Richard C (NZ) on 17/02/2012 at 2:09 pm said:

      Thanks to a very helpful email from a JoNova reader (H/t N.E.) with attached instructions and advice about reading them (my weakness), the ‘Public Link’ for GMSL.xls is

      Caveat emptor.

      I’ve asked for feedback at JN that people can actually get access to the file and perhaps someone other than Andy could do that here.

      I’m reasonably sure (need to do more Jason-2 research) that the adjustments are due to the 2nd item here:-

      Release Notes

      2012 Release 1 (2012-02-13):

      * Added Jason-2/OSTM GDR cycles 118-127.
      * Reverted Jason-2/OSTM orbits to nominal CNES/GDR-T orbits.

      The Jason-2 span corresponds to the significant adjustments (there are other minor ones at regular intervals going back to TOPEX).

    • Richard C (NZ) on 12/04/2012 at 5:52 pm said:

      The correction to Envisat that I’ve been expecting that makes it more comparable to Jason-2 has arrived and I think Steven Goddard has got it wrong this time

      Although having said that, the actual adjustment they have come up with looks extremely dubious.

      SG hasn’t superimposed the old plot at the right absolute values either

    • Richard C (NZ) on 12/04/2012 at 6:17 pm said:

      SG’s Envisat plot in an earlier post is better but doesn’t show the oddball rise from late 2011 – 2012 and present

    • Richard C (NZ) on 13/04/2012 at 5:36 pm said:

      The plot thickens. Turns out that Envisat has failed completely (“given up the ghost” as Anthony Watts puts it). This explains why the series didn’t ring true.

      The intrigue starts because the dubious adjustments were made IMMEDIATELY AFTER the failure, see:-

      Envisat’s satellite failure launches mysteries

      Ecotretas :takes up from Steven Goddard.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 23/01/2012 at 4:34 pm said:

      At the bottom of the U of C GMSL page there’s an article ‘NASA Satellites Detect Pothole on Road to Higher Seas’. This quotes the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory article ‘An Update from NASA’s Sea Level Sentinels:’

      See figure top-of-page and note that the 3.2 mm/yr “Slope” has not been updated accordingly.

      In the article, Josh Willis explains the sudden 6mm 2010 GMSL drop:-

      “…while 2010 began with a sizable El Niño, by year’s end, it was replaced by one of the strongest La Niñas in recent memory. This sudden shift in the Pacific changed rainfall patterns all across the globe, bringing massive floods to places like Australia and the Amazon basin, and drought to the southern United States.

      Fine, but then the article goes into spin:-

      So where does all that extra water in Brazil and Australia come from? You guessed it–the ocean. Each year, huge amounts of water are evaporated from the ocean. While most of it falls right back into the ocean as rain, some of it falls over land. “This year, the continents got an extra dose of rain, so much so that global sea levels actually fell over most of the last year,” says Carmen Boening, a JPL oceanographer and climate scientist. Boening and colleagues presented these results recently at the annual Grace Science Team Meeting in Austin, Texas.

      But for those who might argue that these data show us entering a long-term period of decline in global sea level, Willis cautions that sea level drops such as this one cannot last, and over the long-run, the trend remains solidly up. Water flows downhill, and the extra rain will eventually find its way back to the sea. When it does, global sea level will rise again.

      “We’re heating up the planet, and in the end that means more sea level rise,” says Willis. “But El Niño and La Niña always take us on a rainfall rollercoaster, and in years like this they give us sea-level whiplash.”

      Spin. spin, spin and Willis ignores his own words:-

      “…and drought to the southern United States”

      The page shows a marked up ‘Extra Water’ plot on the right side:-


      Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (Grace) map shows how much water was lost or gained over the continents between the spring of 2010 and the spring of 2011. The red colors show dry regions where water was lost. The blue colors show places that gained water, usually because of heavier-than-normal rainfall or snow. Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

      The plot also shows ‘Less Water’ (Red) occurring in North America, South America, South Africa, Eurasia and Northern Asia.

      Naturally Rob Painting, Skeptical Science Officionado and Hot Topic Regular as “Dappledwater”, has adopted the NASA spin in response to Bryan Leyland’s correct assessment of actual data:-

      “…no abnormal sea level rise. Instead, there has been a decline in the rate of rise”


      Dappledwater January 22, 2012 at 12:02 pm

      “Wrong again. Sea level has temporarily fallen because of the short-term exchange of water mass between the oceans and land”

      For once Rob is right in the first sentence for the short-term. Bryan is correct for the long-term but incorrect for the short-term. In hindsight, Bryan should have specified the term he was referring to (although sensible people would have known what he meant)..

      But as to whether “Sea level has temporarily fallen” [Rob admits it has fallen at least] due to NASA’s spin story – that remains to be seen (and Australia’s inland lakes retain the water they have collected for some time).

  25. The most commonly quoted sea level rise projection for the 21st century is from Vermeer and Rahmstorf (PNAS, 2009). They relied on 20th century sea level data from Church and White (Geophysical Research Letters, 2006). Church and White built their sea level data from the tide gauge data at the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL).

    You can see the entire set of PSMSL tide gauge data, set to music no less, here…

    It is a fun way to look for sea level rise acceleration.

  26. Jim McK on 02/04/2012 at 12:04 pm said:

    Here is one that got past the Herald editors

    Apparently coral handles climate change quite well.

  27. Mike Jowsey on 03/04/2012 at 10:09 am said:

    George says:
    April 2, 2012 at 12:22 pm

    The idea of making a big deal out of the fact that the oceans warmed over the past century should give an academic pause in that to reach any other conclusion would be stupendously idiotic. We were in the grips of the LIA for several centuries. During that time one would expect the oceans to cool. We only started out of the LIA 150 years ago. During THAT time one would expect the oceans to warm. This is like saying that the average temperature of swimming pools in Los Angeles is higher in summer than it is in winter. DUH!

    That oceans have warmed over the past 100 years does not indicate that anything is wrong or that we are causing it. It is simply validation of what we already know; that climate was colder during the LIA than it is today and that it has warmed gradually and the sea and atmosphere didn’t just jump to a higher temperature one morning.

  28. Mike Jowsey on 27/04/2012 at 9:10 am said:

    Century-old New Zealand map throws new doubt on climate change sea level claims

  29. Richard C (NZ) on 04/05/2012 at 10:34 am said:

    Mark Lynas discovers no sea level rise at Kiribati:-

    Where sea-level rise isn’t what it seems

    Whilst working for the Maldives government I was always aware of the need to resist the temptation of making sweeping statements about the impacts of climate change and sea-level rise in the service of wider political ends. I saw part of my role as advisor to push back against the simplistic view that given that we know that the planet is warming, and the seas are rising, surely the impacts – in terms of erosion, flooding events and disasters – should increasingly be visible now, right?

    A new paper published in the AGU’s house journal Eos Transactions shows why caution is often justified. Here (via a screengrab, as the entire thing is behind a password) is the 1993-2011 sea level trend data from Tarawa atoll, part of Kiribati in the central Pacific:

    [See plot]

    Whoa! No sea-level rise there, then.

    To me the graph is interesting for two reasons. The first is the absence of any trend over the last 20 years towards increased sea levels in that part of the Pacific


    Better late than never I guess. Quotes from the Donner paper in the rest of the post are worth a read too.

  30. Richard C (NZ) on 23/06/2012 at 11:11 am said:

    The fibbing just keeps on coming. Climate scientists tacking the satellite trend (incorrect at that) onto the tide guage trend then saying “since 1993, they [sea levels] have been rising at a faster rate”.

    California faces more serious risk of sea level rise than other areas

    Sea level rise around the world is driven largely by melting ice and the warming of ocean waters, which causes the water to expand. Over the 20th century, the world’s oceans rose at a rate of 1.7 millimeters a year, or about 7 inches over the century. But since 1993, they have been rising at a faster rate, of 3.1 millimeters a year, or 12 inches a century.

    Most of the world’s climate scientists, coastal geologists and oceanographers see that rate of rise increasing even faster in the decades ahead.

    “There’s no indication greenhouses gases are diminishing,” said Griggs. “Things aren’t turning around. Most politicians are in office for a few years, and these are multi-decade problems.”


    Still no word (or proof) on how “greenhouses gases” [sic] (of whatever origin) actually are the sea level driver.

  31. Richard C (NZ) on 18/12/2012 at 1:46 pm said:

    Double standard at Deltoid.

    The top CSIRO graph appends satellite altimeter SLR to tide guage SLR – that’s OK.

    The bottom Klaus-Eckart Puls graph identifies different trends in the same satellite altimeter SLR – that’s not OK.

  32. Richard C (NZ) on 01/02/2013 at 9:21 pm said:

    Heads-up, “Earth Under Water” will be screening on Prime at 8:35pm Monday. This is what to expect:-

    A new documentary from the BBC foretells a disaster waiting to happen in “Earth Under Water.”

    Imagine sea levels rising to over 70 metres… Eminent climatologists think another Great Flood is inevitable if current CO2 emissions continue. Based on research by NASA astro-biologist and paleontologist Professor Peter Ward and a group of respected American climatologists, Earth Under Water is an eye-opening documentary uses scientific evidence past and present, archive footage, location photography and CGI to explore the terrifying consequences should the atmosphere’s CO2 levels treble over the next 100 to 300 years, as predicted. Step by step, it paints a chilling picture of the world as the sea levels rise from between one and 70 metres, unravelling the science behind this cataclysm, revealing when it could strike and what its impact would be on humanity. The film also questions experts and politicians about what measures can be taken now to stop the current rise of CO2 emissions, and explores how extreme engineering will buy us time. But the message of this film is stark, spelling out in graphic detail the Earth’s apocalyptic future that we have been avoiding.

    Don’t say I didn’t warn ya!

    • Richard C (NZ) on 01/02/2013 at 9:32 pm said:

      Got the time wrong.

      Prime Presents: Earth Under Water Monday 09:35PM

      A “Documentary” apparently.

    • Andy on 01/02/2013 at 10:00 pm said:

      The first minute of the YouTube clip was enough for me.
      Watching stuff like this is a bit like watching Top of the Pops from the 1980s, with Jimmy Savile and his Dolly Birds.

      So last century

    • Richard C (NZ) on 02/02/2013 at 8:58 am said:

      I’m not sure about the “documentary” category. It also has elements of science fiction, comedy or even history given Hansen’s already failed SLR predictions.

      I guess there’s still a market niche for CGI-driven futuristic disaster fantasy – Prime bought it.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 05/02/2013 at 10:38 am said:

      Watched this in entirety last night – insane, 6 ft SLR by 2100. It was a 2010 BBC production so probably a freeby filler Prime uplifted from somewhere to kill time before 60 Minutes starts.

      Stefan Rahmstorf was there saying exactly the same ”heat penetrates faster into the oceans in a warmer climate” that I picked up at Real Climate 2013 here:-

      Odd that no-one’s had a quiet word with Stefan in the intervening time.

      I thought the “documentary” had reached the height of absurdity with proposals for a dam across San Francisco Bay (where the Golden Gate bridge is) and a retaining-wall system around Manhattan similar to New Orleans but no,

      Pride-of-place went to a “feasible” £250 billion proposal for a dam across the Gibraltar Straits.

  33. Richard C (NZ) on 15/11/2013 at 8:20 pm said:

    ‘Satellite sea level data has been “adjusted” upward by 34% over past 9 years alone’

    The Hockey Schtick

    There are many documented examples of sea level data from satellite altimeters being “adjusted” upward many years after publication, often repeatedly on the same data, and in defiance of the laws of probability, always in an upward direction. Seven documented examples can be found in the links in this post. A recent comment in a sea level article on the Yale Environment 360 site documents another example of sea level data being adjusted upward by 34% [by 1 mm/yr, equivalent to an additional 4 inches per century] over the 9 years since it was collected and published on the University of Colorado website.


    Simply put the URL of their home page ( into the Internet WayBack Machine ( and see for yourself.

    This archived time line:
    ( differs from the current one:
    in a rather interesting fashion. Changes have been made to the data resulting in an increase in the rate of reported sea level rise by nearly a millimeter per year


    Thank you, WayBack Machine.

  34. Richard C (NZ) on 17/11/2013 at 10:01 pm said:

    Interesting paper on SLR at The Hockey Schtick and also picked up by Jo Nova (links below) that uses Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD), One of the co-authors is Dr Norden Huang, an expert in EMD and the Hilbert-Huang transform (HHT), and previously with NASA GSFC:

    Hilbert-Huang transform

    * Dr. Norden E. Huang, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland
    * Dr. Zhaohua Wu, Center for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Studies, Calverton, MD, USA
    * Dr. Steven R. Long, NASA GSFC / Wallops Flight Facility, Wallops Island, VA, USA; research oceanographer, Code 614.2

    The Hilbert-Huang transform (HHT) is NASA’s designated name for the combination of the empirical mode decomposition (EMD) and the Hilbert spectral analysis (HSA). It is an adaptive data analysis method designed specifically for analyzing data from nonlinear and nonstationary processes.

    ‘New paper finds sea level rise has decelerated 44% since 2004 to only 7 inches per century’

    The Hockey Schtick

    A paper published today in Global and Planetary Change finds global sea level rise has decelerated by 44% since 2004 to a rate equivalent to only 7 inches per century. According to the authors, global mean sea level rise from 1993-2003 was at the rate of 3.2 mm/yr, but sea level rise “started decelerating since 2004 to a rate of 1.8 ± 0.9 mm/yr in 2012.”

    The authors also find “This deceleration is mainly due to the slowdown of ocean thermal expansion in the Pacific during last decade,” which is in direct opposition to claims that the oceans “ate the global warming.” This finding debunks alarmist claims that ocean heat uptake has increased over the past decade, demonstrating instead that ocean heat uptake has decreased during the global warming pause since 2004, and has gone negative since 2007, as shown by fig. 4b indicating steric sea level rise from thermal expansion has been negative since 2007. […]

    Global Sea Level Trend during 1993-2012

    * Xianyao Chena, b,
    * Ying Fenga, b,
    * Norden E. Huanga, b

    * a Key Laboratory of Data Analysis and Applications, State Oceanic Administration, China
    * b The First Institute of Oceanography, State Oceanic Administration, China


    ‘Sea level rise slowed from 2004 – Deceleration, not acceleration as CO2 rises.’


    A new paper shows that sea levels rose faster in the ten years from 1993-2003 than they have since. Sea levels are still rising but the rate has slowed since 2004. This does not suggest that the missing energy from the atmosphere has snuck into the ocean, but rather that the oceans and the atmosphere were both warming faster in the 1990′s, then as coal power ramped up in China and billions of tons of CO2 was released, both the atmosphere and the ocean did not gain more energy per year, but less. That message again — something else appears to be the main driver the climate, not CO2.


    # # #

    One wonders whether Dr Norden Huang would have been able to co-author a similar paper if still at NASA GSFC? And what were the reasons for his move from US NASA GSFC to State Oceanic Administration, China?

    Also presents some problems for the NASA GISS guys at Real Climate who will not be happy with this.

  35. Richard C (NZ) on 27/08/2014 at 2:20 pm said:

    ‘Global sea level rise a bit more than 1mm a year for last 50 years, no acceleration’

    JoNova, August 26th, 2014

    Beenstock et al (2014): “Although mean sea levels are rising by 1mm/year, sea level rise is local rather than global, and is concentrated in the Baltic and Adriatic seas, South East Asia and the Atlantic coast of the United States. In these locations, covering 35 percent of tide gauges, sea levels rose on average by 3.8mm/year. Sea levels were stable in locations covered by 61 percent of tide gauges, and sea levels fell in locations covered by 4 percent of tide gauges. In these locations sea levels fell on average by almost 6mm/year.”

    REFERENCE [hotlinked]
    Michael Beenstock, Daniel Felsenstein,*Eyal Frank & Yaniv Reingewertz, (2014) Tide gauge location and the measurement of global sea level rise, Environmental and Ecological Statistics, May 2014 [Abstract]

  36. Richard C (NZ) on 14/11/2015 at 10:08 am said:

    Good news on sea level lunacy:

    ‘An Outbreak Of Sanity Down Under’

    Written by Dr. Benny Peiser, GWPF, guest post on 13 November 2015.

    The Australian is reporting that the New South Wales government has suddenly come over all sensible on the subject of sea-level rise. This is of course precisely the approach recommended by Carter and de Lange in their GWPF report on the subject. –Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill, 13 November 2015

    The NSW government will today unveil sweeping changes to how the state’s coastline is managed, building on its insistence that local councils look at the science and evidence of individual beaches rather than blindly adopting UN predictions of climate change. Planning Minister Rob Stokes will announce what he says are world-first strategies that treat the 2007km NSW coast not as static fixed geography but as a constantly changing and evolving phenomenon. The initiatives mark the second phase of the Coalition government’s demolition of the previous Labor government’s policy, which among other things directed local councils on the coast to enforce the climate change and sea level rise predictions of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. –Ean Higgins, The Australian, 13 November 2015

    So far as I am aware, this is the first time that a serving Western cabinet minister has ever publicly rejected the advice of the IPCC in such an abrupt fashion as this. The new and sensible policy of treating the coastal zone as a geomorphically active one and in insisting on the application of empirical data at specific locations (rather than generalized computer model projections) for planning and management purposes, the NSW government is following almost to the letter the advice contained in two [of our] reports. In the Australian context, this is also a major defeat for the CSIRO, whose consistently alarmist advice on sea-level change has entirely depended upon semi-empirical, homogenized-data-input computer projections that have now been flatly rejected. As this sea-level example shows, ultimately empiricism (and adaptation rather than “stop global warming”) is going to win through. –Bob Carter, Bishop Hill, 13 November 2015

    ‘An outbreak of sanity’ – Bishop Hill

  37. Richard C (NZ) on 30/03/2016 at 9:37 am said:

    ‘An answer to: Is the rise in sea levels accelerating?’

    by: Jan Kjetil Andersen, March 28, 2016

    […..IPCC AR5 case with updated data……]

    I have selected three set of series, which I call very long series, long series and medium long series.

    Very long series are 1900 through 2013; long series 1925 through 2014 and medium long are 1950 through 2014.

    In addition, all selected series have at least 80% complete monthly readings.

    Of the 281 stations in the Gloss network only 6 fulfils the criteria for very long series, 9 for long series and 22 for medium long series. The list of these stations is given in the end of the article.

    Two averages are made for each set of series; one simple average, and one global gridded average. The latter one was computed by dividing the globe in a 6×12 grid consisting of 72 cells measuring 30 degrees latitude times 30 degrees longitude. First, an average of all stations within each grid cell are computed. The global average is then an average of the all grid cells with a weighting of each grid cells according to its area. Because degrees longitude are shorter closer to the poles, the grid cells are also smaller. The relative length of one degree longitude, is cosinus of the degree latitude at the same spot. The weight of each grid cell is therefore the absolute value of cosinus of the degree latitude in the middle of the cell.

    The benefit with this method is that we get less bias toward the areas with most stations. The gridded average is therefore the most important of the two.

    The plots of absolute rise and 18-year trend are shown below.

    [see plots]
    Figure 7 a)-f). Absolute rise and 18-year trend for three different time intervals.

    b)18-year trend for very long series. Both start and end years for the 18-year period are shown. No discernible acceleration is evident from the moving average plot, but the linear trend line reveals a very small acceleration. However, all of this small acceleration is due to the small spikes in each end of the series.

    d)18-year trend for long series. We see that the largest rise occurred in the period starting around 1965. No discernible acceleration can be seen after the 1965 – 1973 period

    f)18-year trend for medium long series. We see an acceleration for the simple average, but any acceleration for the gridded set is more dubious. Except for a very short spike in the end, the rise in recent decades are no higher than 1960-ies. All the trend in the gridded series is due to the spike since 2011. To visualize this I have included a trend line of a series that stops in 2011 (green color).


    So what to make of all this?

    I have not made any regression analysis to show whether the small increase is statistically significant or not. I welcome anyone to do that. However, I think the graphs gives a quite clear message even without further analysis; if there is any acceleration, it is infinitesimal.

    See List of GLOSS stations used:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *