Archive for the ‘sea level’ Category

h1

Vermeer and Rahmstorf paper rejected

January 31, 2014

Vermeer and Rahmstorf had a paper rejected by the journal “Climate of the Past.” This news is 16 months old, but I just heard about it, and could find very few references about it on the web.

This paper, On the differences between two semi-empirical sea level models for the last two millennia,  promoted their earlier sea level rise models.  They couldn’t seem to get traction with this paper.

Here are some reviewers’ comments…

One of the major problems with this work is the decidedly biased analysis and presentation.

Highly biased analysis and presentation.

It currently takes significant effort to figure out which pairs of models and training data sets the authors use, and whether they have evaluated all the relevant combinations of the same.

No surprise here.  Rahmstorf has a history of alluding to all kinds of data sets and implying that he has taken them into consideration, but only presenting results for those that support his thesis.

And the final blow…

In the light of the two negative reviews and one comment which all require new analyses and point to fundamental flaws in the methodology of the current paper, I regret to inform you that my conclusion is to support rejection. I strongly dissuade the authors from submitting responses and a revised version.

Here is the paper…

Click for full PDF version

Here is the reviewers’ discussion that lead to the the rejection.

Of course, Vermeer and Rahmstorf do not give up that easily, and similar papers have been shopped around to other journals

h1

The Search for Acceleration, part 9, the Baltic Sea

October 23, 2013

magnifying glass 145This is part 9 of a series of posts in which I am searching for a large acceleration in sea level rise rate in the latter part of the 20th century.  Such a rise rate acceleration is needed  to reconcile the 1.8 mm per year average rise rate for the century attributed to tide gauge data and the approximately 3 mm per year rise rate for the tail end of the century attributed to the satellite data.

The Baltic Sea

There are 22 tide gauge stations in the Baltic Sea area that are at least 90% data complete from 1960 to 2005.  Eighteen of those are 90% complete all the way back to 1930 and ten are 90% complete back to 1900.  The weighting (using a 200 km threshold) is nearly constant for the entire 20th century (see weighting graph below).  I will use the usual technique of detrending, weighting, averaging and derivatives, as shown in the following slide show.  (Note that you can pause or increment the slide show forward or backward by using the buttons that appear when your cursor is placed over the image.)

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Conclusion

The following graph makes clear that the Baltic Sea tide gauge data DOES reconcile the sea level rise rate from the tide gauge data with the higher late century rise rate from the satellite data.

Baltic Sea Detrended Acceleration annotated 2
On the other hand, the tide gauge sea level rise rate immediately before the era of satellite data is higher than rise rate after….

Baltic Sea Detrended Acceleration annotated 3

See an index of the Search for Acceleration series here.

_________________________________________

Sources

20th century rise rate average of 1.8 mm/year

1. Church and White Global Mean Sea Level Reconstruction

2. Links to Church and White sea level data

Satellite data (about 3 mm/year): CU Sea Level Research Group

RLR tide gauge data: Permanent Service For Mean Sea Level

h1

The Search for Acceleration, part 3: Japan

June 26, 2013

magnifying glass 145

CORRECTION: 6/30/13

The original detrended sea level rise rate graphs for this post was off by a factor of 12!.  This greatly changes my conclusion.  Incorrect information is now crossed out and is followed by corrected information in red.

Tide gauge data for the 20th century indicates that the average sea level rise rate was 1.8 mm/year.  Satellite data from 1993 to present indicates a sea level rise rate of about 3 mm/year.  This is part 3 of a series of posts looking for the acceleration necessary to reconcile those two facts

I am working under the theory that by detrending sea level data from individual (local) sites and averaging with other regional sites it should be possible to extract changes in regional rise rates while bypassing the question of what the “true” rise rate is for that region.

Japan

Conclusion: There is no convincing sign of a late century acceleration in the sea level rise rate in the tide gauge data from the Japan.

Conclusion:  The rise rate during much of  the satellite era has been much higher than the average for part of the 20th century for which data is available.

I looked for tide gauge data along the coast of Japan such that it covered at least the period from 1955 to 2008 with 90% of all monthly data accounted for. The following image shows the seven sites that met this criteria.  The circles show a weighting threshold of 300 km.

Seven sites used in this analysis.  Circles show 300 km weighting threshold

Seven sites used in this analysis. Circles show 300 km weighting threshold

The following plot shows the qualifying data spread out for easy comparison. The key at the right shows the RLR data filenames.

Japan Raw Spread

Sea level data for all seven sites.

Data reduction and detrending

The following animation shows the transition through raw data, removal of the yearly signals, detrending, Gaussian smoothing and conversion to derivative (rise rate).

Japan 90p 1955-2008 450ani corrected

Here are the removed yearly signals and the weighting.

Yearly signals removed from Japanese RLR data

Yearly signals removed from Japanese RLR data

Number of files and effective weighting based on 300 km threshold.

Number of files and effective weighting based on 300 km threshold.

Lets take a closer look at the detrended rise rate data and look for an acceleration in the satellite data era…

corrected rise rate Detrended Acceleration annotated Japan 90p 1955-2008 Detrended Acceleration annotated

corrected rise rate Detrended Acceleration annotated

The very weak argument could be made that there was a rapid acceleration around 1985, but the resulting sea level rise rate was only about 0.25 mm/year higher than the average for the last half of the century. There was also an even greater acceleration around 1965, and sea level rise rate around 1970 was as high or higher than than in the 1990s.  Finally, the 0.25 mm/year increase in the rise rate is only about 20% of the difference between the average global tide gauge rise rate for the 20th century (1.8 mm/year) and the satellite data (1993 to present) rise rate (about 3 mm/year).

So, I conclude that the Japanese data does not reconcile the difference between the 20th century tide gauge data and the satellite data.

The tide gauge data covering the part of the satellite data era (1993 to present) clearly shows a rise rate that is far greater than the average rise rate for the entire time period covered by the tide gauges.  The period from 1993 to about 2003 may have a rise rate around 3 mm/year greater than the average, but after that the rise rate seems to fall again.  Note that form about 1965 to 1975 the rise rate was also very high.  This data from Japan does reconcile the difference between the satellite data and the average tide gauge data.

Fukushima

The following graphs show the sea level data from the Soma tide gauge station in Japan with the seven station shown above.  Soma is the tide gauge station closest to the Fukushima nuclear reactors.  The images speak for themselves.

Japan with Soma Raw Spread

Fukushima map

********************************************

Sources

20th century rise rate average of 1.8 mm/year

1. Church and White Global Mean Sea Level Reconstruction

2. Links to Church and White sea level data

Satellite data (about 3 mm/year)

CU Sea Level Research Group

RLR tide gauge data

Permanent Service For Mean Sea Level

h1

The Search for Acceleration, part 2: East Coast of North America

June 24, 2013

magnifying glass 145

CORRECTION: 6/30/13

The original detrended sea level rise rate graphs for this post was off by a factor of 12!.  This greatly changes my conclusion.  Incorrect information is now crossed out and is followed by corrected information in red.

This is part 2 of a series of posts in which I am searching for a large acceleration in sea level rise rate in the latter part of the 20th century that could reconcile the 1.8 mm per year average rise rate for the century attributed to tide gauge data and the approximately 3 mm per year rise rate for the tail end of the century attributed to the satellite data.

The global sea level rise rate is swamped by other effects.  In most locations the yearly rise and fall of the oceans is greater than the 18 cm of sea level rise during the entire 20th century.  Geologic effects (e.g. glacial isostatic adjustment or plate tectonics) add to local and regional rise rates, making them deviate greatly from the global rise rate.

I am working under the theory that by detrending sea level data from individual (local) sites and averaging with other regional sites it should be possible to extract changes in regional sea level rise rates while bypassing the question of what the “true” sea level rise rate is in that region.

East Coast of North America

Conclusion: There is no sign of an acceleration in the sea level rise rate in the tide gauge data from the East Coast of North America.

Conclusion:  The tide gauge data for the East Coast of North America that covers that satellite sea level data era (1993 to present) does show a rise rate that is significantly higher than the tide gauge data rise rate for the 20th century.  But the sea level rise rate in the 1930s through 1940s and around 1970 was as high or higher.Whether or not this data reconciles the difference between the 20th century tide gauge rise rate average and the satellite rise rate average is still ambiguous.

I have selected the East Coast of North America, for no particular reason, as the first region to analyse.  I looked for tide gauge data along the coast such that it covered at least the period from 1960 to 2008 with 90% of all monthly data accounted for.  Usable sites ranged from Nova Scotia to Georgia.

Click on any animations or graphs to enlarge.
East Coast North America 90p 1960-2008 Map

The following plot shows the qualifying data spread out for easy comparison.  The key at the right shows the associate RLR data files.

East Coast North America 90p 1960-2008 Raw Spread

Averaged data

As I mentioned above, I am not concerned with finding the sea level rise rate, but rather the change in sea level rise rate. However the following data for the East Coast of North America is interesting because it shows an averaged sea level rise rate for the 20th century that is close to the satellite derived sea rate for the end of the 20th century.  This is will not be the case for most regions around the world.  If you squint the right way you can also see the change in rise rate around 1930 that shows up in the various iterations of Church and White’s derivations of 20th century sea levels.

East Coast North America 90p 1960-2008 Avg 450ani2

Detrended data

East Coast North America 90p 1960-2008 450ani corrected

The last frame of the detrended data animation is worth repeating (see below).  Notice that there is no evidence of an extreme or consistent increase in the sea level rise rate in the last two decades.  The rise rates were as great or greater in the 1940s, 1950s and 1970s than they were in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s.  However, at least part of the satellite era (1993 to present) tide gauge data may be more than 2 mm/year greater than the average for the 20th century.  It is safe to say that the tide gauge data from the East Coast of the North America does not reconcile the difference between the 20th century rise rate average (about 1.8 mm/year) and the satellite measured average (about 3 mm/year) Whether or not this data reconciles the difference between the 20th century tide gauge rise rate average and the satellite rise rate average is still ambiguous.

East Coast North America 90p 1960-2008 Detrended Acceleration
corrected East Coast North America 90p 1960-2008 Detrended Acceleration

h1

Rahmstorf (2011): Robust or Just Busted (Part 6): Holgate’s sea level data

November 11, 2012

This is part 6 of a multi-part series about “Testing the robustness of semi-empirical sea level projections,” Rahmstorf, et. al., Climate Dynamics, 2011. You can see an index of all parts here. I frequently refer to this paper as R2011.

Recall figure 1 from R2011[1]…

Figure 1 from "Testing the robustness of semi-empirical sea level projections" (Rahmstorf, et. al., Climate Dynamics, 2011)

One of the primary points of this graphic is the quadratic fit of one data set (CW06) overlaid on all the other data sets.  The message that you are to receive is that these various sets of sea level data all tell the same essential story.  The falseness of this claim was discussed in “Quadratic fits of laughter.”

But let’s take Rahmstorf at his word.  Let’s agree with him that these sea level data sets all tell essentially the same story.  R2011’s big point is that the Rahmstorf model is “robust” given a variety of different historical data sources.  So it seems a tad bit strange that after going to all the trouble to point out these various sea level data sources and their similarities, he only gives the projection results of his model for three of them (CW06[2], CW11[3], and JE08[4]).

Of those three input sea level data sets, only two of them give similar sea level projections for the 21st century.  The outlier which results from CW11 shows significantly lower sea level projections.  Because of this, the outlier must be rejected (according to R2011), even though Church and White, the authors of both CW06 and CW11, clearly think the CW11 data is an improvement over their Cw06 data.

What about some of the other sea level rise data sets shown in R2011’s figure 1?  What type of 21st century sea level projections do they yield when inserted into Rahmstorf’s model?

Holgate’s sea level data

Let’s consider the sea level rise data of Simon Holgate.    The above image shows Holgate’s 2004 data[5], labeled HW04.  As I have previously pointed out, R2011 oddly includes Holgate’s 2004 data but ignores his 2007 data[6], H07.  I will consider both.  In my previous post I showed the results of Rahmstorf’s model when either CW06 and CW11 are input with six different combinations of reservoir storage and ground water depletion inputs.  The following two graphs show the results in the same format using HW04 and H07 (instead of CWo6 and CW11) with the same combination of reservoir storage and ground water depletion inputs.  I have kept the horizontal axis scaling the same as in the previous post to highlight the different results when Church and White data is used and when Holgate data is used.  Data files with all the specifics of this data are at the bottom of the post.

FIGURE 2. Sea level rise projections for the 21st century based on my implementation of Rahmstorf’s model under the RCP45 emissions scenario (Moss, 2010)[7] for Holgate sea level data coupled with various combinations of reservoir storage and groundwater depletion data inputs.
FIGURE 3. Sea level rise projections for the 21st century based on my implementation of Rahmstorf’s model under the RCP85 emissions scenario (Moss, 2010)[7] for Holgate sea level data coupled with various combinations of reservoir storage and groundwater depletion data inputs.

For comparison, here are the previously posted results using Church and White sea level data…

 RCP45

 RCP85

Hmmm…

Didn’t R2011 imply that those various sea level data sets shown if figure 1, above, told the same essential story?  Yes, I believe he did!  That is why they overlaid the same quadratic fit onto all of them.

And didn’t R2011 say that their model was “robust?”  Yes, I am quite certain that they did!  In fact the word “robust” was in the title of their paper, and they said…

“We determine the parameters of the semiempirical link between global temperature and global sea level in a wide variety of ways…We then compare projections of all these different model versions (over 30) for a moderate global warming scenario for the period 2000–2100. We find the projections are robust

and

“we will systematically explore how robust semi-empirical sea level projections are with respect  to the choice of data sets”

So, they claim to use “a wide variety of ways” to look at “all these different model versions (over 30).”  They show plots of seven different sea level data sets and imply their similarity.  But they only show projections based on three of them.  Then they reject the projections based on one of the three, even though it is arguably the best sea level data of the bunch.

What do they say about their model’s projections based on the “wide variety” other sea level data sets that look so good overlaid with the same quadratic fit…?

Cricket. Cricket.

How would R2011 reject the projections based on the Holgate data?

How would R2011 reject the projections based on the Holgate data that I have shown above in figures 2 and 3?  Well they would undoubtedly point out that the fit parameter, To (the so called baseline temperature, is way too low.  Recall, R2011 finds To to be on the order of -0.4 °C (below the 1950 to 1980 global average).  When Holgate’s sea level data is used, To is on the order of -4.0 °C.  Hey Rahmstorf, don’t blame me, its your model!

Maybe one of these days I will write a justification for a large negative To.  It is really quite simple.  But I am going to conclude for today.

Which of the many projections do I endorse?

Which projections are better – the ones based on CW06, CW11, JE08, HW04, or H07?  None of them.  As I have pointed out over and over, the Rahmstorf model is bogus, bogus, bogus.  I have now shown, again, that it is also not robust.  It is only marginally better than a random number generator.  HIgher temperatures would likely lead to higher sea levels, but Rahmstorf’s model is useless in determining how much.

Data files with specifics of of my implementation of Rahmstorf’s model using Holgate sea level data

Sea level data: Holgate and Woodworth 2004
Reservoir storage: Chao 2oo8
Ground water depletion: none
Result files…
Summary: vr-summary-121110-165152.doc
Inputs: vr-input-image-121110-165152.png
Fit: vr-fit-image-121110-165152.png
Projections: vr-projections-image-121110-165152.png

Sea level data: Holgate and Woodworth 2004
Reservoir storage: Chao 2oo8
Ground water depletion: Wada 2010 extrapolated to 1880
Result files…
Summary: vr-summary-121029-132349.doc
Inputs: vr-input-image-121029-132349.png
Fit: vr-fit-image-121029-132349.png
Projections: vr-projections-image-121029-132349.png

Sea level data: Holgate and Woodworth 2004
Reservoir storage: Chao 2oo8
Ground water depletion: Wada 2010
Result files…
Summary: vr-summary-121029-132148.doc
Inputs: vr-input-image-121029-132148.png
Fit: vr-fit-image-121029-132148.png
Projections: vr-projections-image-121029-132148.png

Sea level data: Holgate and Woodworth 2004
Reservoir storage: Chao 2oo8
Ground water depletion: Wada 2012
Result files…
Summary: vr-summary-121105-230616.doc
Inputs: vr-input-image-121105-230616.png
Fit: vr-fit-image-121105-230616.png
Projections: vr-projections-image-121105-230616.png

Sea level data: Holgate and Woodworth 2004
Reservoir storage: Pokhrel 2012 extrapolated back to 1900
Ground water depletion: Pokhrel 2012 extrapolated back to 1900
Result files…
Summary: vr-summary-121029-133403.doc
Inputs: vr-input-image-121029-133403.png
Fit: vr-fit-image-121029-133403.png
Projections: vr-projections-image-121029-133403.png

Sea level data: Holgate and Woodworth 2004
Reservoir storage: Pokhrel 2012
Ground water depletion: Pokhrel 2012
Result files…
Summary: vr-summary-121029-132906.doc
Inputs: vr-input-image-121029-132906.png
Fit: vr-fit-image-121029-132906.png
Projections: vr-projections-image-121029-132906.png

Sea level data: Holgate 2007
Reservoir storage: Chao 2008
Ground water depletion: none
Result files…
Summary: vr-summary-121029-133753.doc
Inputs: vr-input-image-121029-133753.png
Fit: vr-fit-image-121029-133753.png
Projections: vr-projections-image-121029-133753.png

Sea level data: Holgate 2007
Reservoir storage: Chao 2008
Ground water depletion: Wada 2010 extrapolated to 1880
Result files…
Summary: vr-summary-121029-135519.doc
Inputs: vr-input-image-121029-135519.png
Fit: vr-fit-image-121029-135519.png
Projections: vr-projections-image-121029-135519.png

Sea level data: Holgate 2007
Reservoir storage: Chao 2008
Ground water depletion: Wada 2010
Result files…
Summary: vr-summary-121029-134334.doc
Inputs: vr-input-image-121029-134334.png
Fit: vr-fit-image-1209121029-134334.png
Projections: vr-projections-image-121029-134334.png

Sea level data: Holgate 2007
Reservoir storage: Chao 2008
Ground water depletion: Wada 2012
Result files…
Summary: vr-summary-121029-135834.doc
Inputs: vr-input-image-121029-135834.png
Fit: vr-fit-image-121029-135834.png
Projections: vr-projections-image-121029-135834.png

Sea level data: Holgate 2007
Reservoir storage: Pokhrel 2012 extrapolated to 1900
Ground water depletion: Pokhrel 2012 extrapolated to 1900
Result files…
Summary: vr-summary-121029-175833.doc
Inputs: vr-input-image-121029-175833.png
Fit: vr-fit-image-121029-175833.png
Projections: vr-projections-image-121029-175833.png

Sea level data: Holgate 2007
Reservoir storage: Pokhrel 2012
Ground water depletion: Pokhrel 2012
Result files…
Summary: vr-summary-121029-140159.doc
Inputs: vr-input-image-121029-140159.png
Fit: vr-fit-image-121029-140159.png
Projections: vr-projections-image-121029-140159.png

_________________________________

_________________________________

[1]  Rahmstorf, S., et. al., “Testing the robustness of semi-empirical sea level projections” Climate Dynamics, 2011

[2] Church, J. A., and N. J. White, “A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise“,  Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, 2006

[3] Church, J. A. and N.J. White, “Sea-level rise from the late 19th to  the early 21st Century“, Surveys in Geophysics, 2011

[4] Jevrejeva, S., et. al. “Recent global sea level acceleration started over 200 years ago? ,”  Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, 2008

[5] Holgate, S. J. and Woodworth, P.L., “Evidence for enhanced coastal sea level rise during the 1990s,” Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, 2004

[6] Holgate, S.J., “On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century,” Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, 2007

[7] Moss, et. al., “The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment,” Nature, 463, 2010

h1

Library of data for testing “robustness” of Rahmstorf models

September 5, 2012

This is part 3.5 of a multi-part series about “Testing the robustness of semi-empirical sea level projections,” Rahmstorf, et. al., Climate Dynamics, 2011. You can see an index of all parts here. I frequently refer to this paper as R2011.

I have finally published my small library of temperature, sea-level and sea-level modifier (reservoir storage, groundwater depletion, etc.)  data from various sources.

All of these data files have a consistent format which can be read by my code that calculates fit parameters for the Rahmstorf model relating sea level to temperature.  However, not all of the time series are long enough to be useful in that model.

You can see the data files here.

I am open to suggestions for additions to this list.  If you have any criticisms of the files, such as accuracy of the data, format, selection, anything – please leave a comment.  I will give due attention to any legitimate criticism that is aimed at improving the data.

Coming soon…

I am a slow worker, but I try to be thorough.

The first output from my code, using Rahmstorf’s preferred inputs (GISS temperature, Church and White 2006 sea level data, and the Chao reservoir correction) will be presented soon.  The goal of that presentation will be two-fold: to verify that of my model implementation are consistent with Rahmstorfs; to have a simple format for presenting those result.  That format can then be applied to the results of other input data.

h1

Rahmstorf (2011): Robust or Just Busted (Part 2) – Quadratic Fits of Laughter

July 6, 2012

This is part 2 of a multi-part series about “Testing the robustness of semi-empirical sea level projections,” Rahmstorf, et. al., Climate Dynamics, 2011. You can see an index of all parts here. I frequently refer to this paper as R2011.

I will refer to Stefan Rahmstorf’s “Testing the robustness of semi-empirical sea level projections”  as R2011 [1].

This post is all about fitting sea level data to a quadratic.

There is only one reason to fit sea level vs. time data to a quadratic: to highlight an acceleration trend.  It only makes sense to do so if you think that the trend is more or less uniform over time.  I have warned against reading too much into a quadratic fit, and especially against using a quadratic fit to imply a future trend in sea level.

I have seen something in R2011 that I have never seen before.  The use of a quadratic fit as a kind of “optical delusion.”

Consider the image at the right.  Do you see the triangle?  Sure you do.  Of course, it is not really there.  But what would you say if I insisted that the triangle really was there and said “The circles are shown merely to help the eye find the triangle?”

R2011 has done much the same thing with a quadratic data fit in their figure 1.   I would think what they have done was just a joke, if it weren’t such an obvious attempt to convince readers that the data says something that it does not say.  Take a look…

Figure 1 from "Testing the robustness of semi-empirical sea level projections" (Rahmstorf, et. al., Climate Dynamics, 2011)

Note the dashed grey lines through each data set.  As R2011 explains in their caption, these dashed  grey lines which pass through all the data sets, are actually the quadratic fit to just one of the data sets (CW06)[2].  They say

“The dashed grey line is a quadratic fit to the CW06 data, shown here merely to help the eye in the comparison of the data sets.”

The point the R2011 wants to make, of course, is that all of these data sets have the same acceleration trend as R2011’s preferred sea level data, CW06.

But that is not true.  In fact, if you fit any of the other data sets to a quadratic you will see that every single one of them has a lower trend than CW06 when projected through the 21st century. Every single one of them.

The following figure shows proper quadratic fits to all the sea level data sets used by R2011 in their figure 1.  The legend shows the sea level rise that would result for the period 2000 to 2100 if these quadratics were extrapolated to 2100.

Quadratic fits for all sea level data sets used by R2011 in their figure 1. The legend shows the sea level rise that would result for the period 2000 to 2100 if these quadratics were extrapolated to 2100
Quadratic fits for all sea level data sets used by R2011 in their figure 1. The legend shows the sea level rise that would result for the period 2000 to 2100 if these quadratics were extrapolated to 2100

Updated Holgate data

Science is about constant refinement of theories and data.  When Rahmstorf is faced with old data and new data from the same authors, he has a special method for deciding which data set is better.  The version that points to higher sea level rise in the 21st century is always considered to be better.  Thus his insistence that the 2006 Chuch and White sea level data is  better than the 2009 or 2011 Church and White data that incorporated Church’s and White’s data reduction improvements.

The same is true for Holgate’s sea level data.  Look at HW04 [3] plots in the above graphs.  This Holgate sea level data covers the mid-1950s to the mid-1990s.  It is a curious thing (not really curious if you understand Rahmstorf’s modus operandi) that R2011 chose this data over Holgate’s updated data from 2007 [4], which covers the entire 20th century.  What would happen if we replaced the HW04 data with the 2007 Holgate data (H07)?  Take a look…

Holgate data from 2004 has been replaces with Holgates updated data from 2007.
Holgate data from 2004 has been replaces with Holgates updated data from 2007.

Let me stress again, I do not recommend extrapolating sea level data with quadratic fit, and I am not endorsing any of the extrapolations shown above.  I am simply guffawing at Rahmstorf’s chuzpa in his figure 1.

______________________

1.  Rahmstorf, S., Perrette, M., and Vermeer, M., “Testing the robustness of semi-empirical sea level projections” Climate Dynamics, 2011

2. Church, J. A.,, and White,  N. J., “A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise,” Geophysical Research Letters, 33, 2006

3. Holgate, S. J., Woodworth, P.L., “Evidence for enhanced coastal sea level rise during the 1990s,” Geophysical Research Letters, 31, 2004

4. Holgate S., “On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century,” Geophysical Research Letters, 34, 2007
……..

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 51 other followers