h1

Updated PSMSL sea level video

March 11, 2012

The following video shows all the PSMSL tide gauge data so you can search for a sea level rise acceleration.  It replaces an earlier version that was taken down by youtube because of music license violations.  This version has music with Creative Commons license.  The text and data are the same as before.

Vermeer’s and Rahmstorf’s “Global sea level linked to global temperature” (PNAS, 2009) relied on Church’s and White’s “A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise” (GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 33,) for their sea level data.  Church and White built their sea level time series from the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) tide gauge data.

There is no attempt to analyse the data here, but I have started that process and will report on it later.  The first two minutes may be a little boring, but please read along.  It livens up later.   For now, sit back and enjoy.

About these ads

14 comments

  1. These papers may have some interest for you: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v482/n7386/full/nature10847.html
    “Recent contributions of glaciers and ice caps to sea level rise,”
    by Thomas Jacob, John Wahr, W. Tad Pfeffer & Sean Swenson; Nature 482, 514–518 (23 February 2012)
    quote; “The total contribution to sea level rise from all ice-covered regions is thus 1.48 ± 0.26 mm [per yr]” estimated from “GRACE-derived satellite gravity fields.”

    Compare this to the natural rise of say 10,000 years ago of 40 cm per century (estimate from graph in “Sea Level Rise, After the Ice Melted and Today,” By Vivien Gornitz — January 2007, NASA Science Brief at http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/)


    • Phillip,

      thanks for the comment. I have read the Nature paper.

      We would need to average about 20 mm/year (steric + non-steric) sea level rise for the next 90 years to reach Vermeer’s and Rahmstorf’s projected 1.8 meter rise by 2100. Of course this would require and extreme acceleration from today’s sea level rise rates.

      ClimateSanity


  2. Within about 24 hours there will be a new paper Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics at http://principia-scientific.org/

    In over 6,000 words it covers a wide range of reasons why carbon dioxide can have no warming effect and only a slight cooling effect.

    This is only the sixth paper to be accepted by this organisation which is dedicated to the truth in science.


  3. .
    Stop worrying about sea level! There’s nothing humans can do about it and it’s not going to drown us for reasons I explain in my peer-reviewed paper. Consider these points ….

    ClimateSanity: I have snipped Doug Cotton’s “points.” Those who are interested can read his paper, which is linked in his previous comment. I found it to be uninformed. You can see many comments on Doug Cotton’s ideas here.


  4. I don’t respond to unsupported comments like “uninformed.”

    But some may wish to read the paper and also my response to Jeff Condon’s weak attempt to rebut the paper.

    You’ll find a screen capture of my response in a link near the top of my Home page at http://climate-change-theory.com

    It seems he found it so embarrassing that all he could do was delete it from his site and ban me from commenting in answer to his garbage.


  5. The publications at Principia Scientific International show why carbon dioxide has absolutely no effect on climate, so sensitivity is zero. See, for example, my peer-reviewed paper Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics on the site.

    I am proud to be an active member of PSI and, as such, I am in daily email contact with many of these main stream scientists, including professors and PhD’s in various disciplines such as physics, applied mathematics, chemistry, climatology and astro physics. The numbers are approaching 40, including well known new members just announced.

    What I write are not just my theories. We are all in agreement that standard physics and empirical results back us up.


    • Doug, Since you are in contact with many main stream scientist I have an alternate hypothesis to bounce off you.

      Some of the PSMSL charts show sea levels rising and some show sea levels falling during the same time period. Since the earth is a giant water level, how is that possible? I understand there may be local tidal factors but that should be averaged out. Is it possible that the reference point ( the land mass ) is rising in one location and falling in another? We know that tectonic plates slip past (over and under ) each other and to do so the land mass must go up or down. I have even read articles that say Greenland will move up after the weight of the ice has been removed. Has anyone mapped the locations in relation to the sea level increases and decreases? It might be interesting. The measurements are only as good as the reference point.


      • It could have to do with solid Earth tides which are caused about two-thirds by the Moon and one-third by the Sun, because the tidal gravitational force of the Sun is about 48% that of the Moon. The Earth’s crust is raised by a mean of about 30cm and even up to about 50cm when both Sun and Moon are roughly overhead. (This explains the correlation of some Earthquakes with eclipses of the Sun.)

        GPS altitude measurements are adjusted for the Earth tides, I understand, but I wonder if these have been used when measuring sea levels relative to land. Obviously sea levels are adjusted for ocean tides, but are the Earth tides correctly taken into account?


      • I would think that earth tides would average out assuming that the measurement frequency is more often than the tide frequency and there have been multiple tides over the graphing period. I was thinking something slower and more permanent. There are areas where roads and fences are no longer straight which shows a horizontal movement. Could there also be a vertical component as well? Volcanic islands were underwater at one time. I am having difficulty coming up with a mechanism that has water level increasing in one area and decreasing in another as a trend. I can understand local forces, waves, moon, sun etc creating short term differences but not long term trends. The only explanation I can come up with that fits the facts is that the land is moving. I believe that would explain the observable data for both the land based measurements and the satellite measurements since they use land based stations for reference. It would be interesting to know if the increases are in one area and the decreases are in another. It would give more credability to my theory if they were not randomly distributed although that would probably mean something as well.


      • Thad,

        You are on the right track. Glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) is the effect of the land rebounding up after massive amounts of ice are removed.

        Vast amounts of ice melted at high latitudes when we moved into the interglacial (Holocene) about 15,000 years ago. For example, it is estimated that some places in Canada the ice was two kilometers thick. That land is still rebounding today.

        It is at the northern latitudes that the sea level rise rates are negative (i.e. the charts slope down). Sea level rise rates, with respect to the shoreline are negative around Alaska and Scandinavia for example. If you look at the video again you will see the location for each chart at the top of the chart. Notice that the negative sloped ones tend to be at high latitudes.

        SInce the rate of uplift of the land due to GIA is rather constant at a particular location over hundreds of years, then you might expect the following scenario…

        Let’s say the global sea level rise rate increased by 1 mm/year over the 20th century. Then if it started out at, say, -0.5 mm/year at some location in Alaska, and at 1.5 mm/year on the coast at a lower latitude (say Georgia), then at the end of the century it would be at +0.5 mm/year in Alaska and 2.5 mm/year in Georgia.

        Although the two locations would have different absolute rates, their accelerations would be about the same.

        Please watch the video again and note that the text at the beginning indicates that you should be looking for the acceleration. Can you see it?

        Best regards,
        Tom Moriarty
        ClimateSanity


  6. Some of the PSMSL charts show sea levels rising and some show sea levels falling during the same time period. Since the earth is a giant water level, how is that possible? I understand there may be local tidal factors but that should be averaged out. Is it possible that the reference point ( the land mass ) is rising in one location and falling in another? We know that tectonic plates slip past (over and under ) each other and to do so the land mass must go up or down. Has anyone mapped the locations in relation to the sea level increases and decreases? It might be interesting.


  7. Marshmallow man at 05:40 a consequence of climate change?


    • Isn’t everything?


  8. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is stated (in Wikipedia “Laws of Thermodynamics”) thus …

    “An isolated system, if not already in its state of thermodynamic equilibrium, spontaneously evolves towards it. Thermodynamic equilibrium has the greatest entropy amongst the states accessible to the system.

    If there were to be a sealed cylinder of air which was isothermal, then there would be an “ordered” state with more total energy (PE + KE) at the top. Hence this would not be an equilibrium state, because entropy could increase, and it must. There will only be equilibrium when the sum (PE+KE) is the same at all heights.
    A vertical isothermal state in a gravitational field has less entropy than an isentropic state, the latter having maximum possible entropy, and thus being the equilibrium state as referred to in the Second Law of Thermodynamics as I quoted it above from the Wikipedia “Laws of Thermodynamics’ item. Hence a thermal gradient forms autonomously by diffusion at the molecular level.
    Furthermore, any additional thermal energy deposited at the top can, and will, diffuse towards the bottom, creating a new equilibrium. This means there can be a heat transfer up the thermal gradient if that gradient is equal to or less in absolute magnitude than the normal equilibrium thermal gradient.

    This is how energy absorbed in the Venus (or Earth) atmosphere at any altitude from any source, be it upwelling or downwelling radiation or latent heat release (on Earth) can flow towards the surface, heating the base of the atmosphere and subsequently heating the surface, or “supporting” its existing slightly warmer temperature by slowing the rate of cooling.



Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 49 other followers

%d bloggers like this: