Bishop Hill A rising tide of controversy
Jun 18, 2011 Climate: WG2 I've not followed the sea level rise story closely, but my interest was piqued by Morner's lecture at Cambridge a few weeks back. I don't suppose this news will surprise him very much.
The University of Colorado’s Sea Level Research Group decided in May to add 0.3 millimeters -- or about the thickness of a fingernail -- every year to its actual measurements of sea levels, sparking criticism from experts who called it an attempt to exaggerate the effects of global warming.
The story seems to be that the land is rising, increasing the carrying capacity of the oceans. This would effectively reduce the amount of sea level rise expected, and we couldn't have that - hence the "adjustment". The effect of the adjustment appears to be small when put against the projected rises, but is certainly material against the actual changes recorded (although these are, per Morner, wrong).
Reader Comments (164)
@TimC
You lost me in the calculations by not defining your terms at the beginning.
But the only sea level anybody outside of academe is interested in is the one that shows how far the sea comes up the land. Reporting anything else as 'sealevel' however and whyever adjusted, is plain dishonest.
Especially in a politicised environment where 'sealevel' is one of the banners held high by the thermageddonists.
One would have to believe that the Coloradans were very very innocent not to be aware of this, And it would not be out of place to note that Boulderites are traditionally very left liberal leaning politically.
A coincidence?
@BBD
I'm sure I wasn't alone in taking note of your 18th June post. This has been discussed many times before (if not here, then certainly elsewhere) and I totally agree with everything you say. Of course, measurement uncertainty is a big factor across the board, whether it be Sea Level, Temperature, or even Arctic Sea Ice. The question is, how do we get those in control of these various metrics to properly acknowledge and advertise that fact. I know from bitter personal experience that emails to our local MPs and government departments or agencies gets nowhere. I think we just have to keep plugging away until the MSM picks up on it. There are signs now that they are, finally, beginning to take more notice of the controversies. Not there yet by a long way, but progress nonetheless.
As for the duck thing - hey, it's the weekend and it's been a long hot week in the blogosphere. A little bit of humourous silliness does wonders for releasing some of the tension. I'm sure everyone will be back on point for the coming week ;)
@ Mike Jackson
I think you're a little confused. Turning left at the second "Here be Dragons" sign actually takes you into North Wales - home of the "Traffic Taliban". Anyone who doesn't believe there are dragons in Wales obviously hasn't met my ex-mother-in-law (boom, boom). Never lived in either country, but worked a lot in both. Good times. Of course, you're right about discussing Scottish MPs and the "West Lothian Problem". After all, that would be politics and this is a site for primarily discussing AGW issues and what's that got to do with politics? ;)
TimC, if you don't see the problem you are either very dim or brainwashed.
See the two comments from Latimer Alder.
Your worked example is pointless.
If you are talking about something called 'Global Mean Sea Level' it should be what most people would understand by that term - sea level as measured relative to the land.
If you want to calculate something else, like total sea water volume for example, then fine, do that, add your 'adjustment', and call it what it is. But don't add an adjustment and then call it mean sea level, which it clearly isn't.
It's very simple.
I think it may be too late for Bodiam Castle- last time I went there, there was water all round it. :)
The amazing thing is that allegedly serious people are assigning precision levles of 0.X mm's to a system whose average depth is measured in kilometers, and which in its daily regular fluctuations and random fluctuations driven by weather and geology is measured in the multiple meter ranges.
The only thing this report sheds a light on is to demonstrate hubris.
hunter
And you could add that the same thing applies to the daily variation in temperature and we are supposed to get excited because the global average is warmer by an amount that no-one can feel and that none of us (outside science labs and probably not even there) has instruments sensitive enough to measure accurately.
Incidentally, have a look at http://members.iinet.net.au/~jacob/worldtp.html
No continent (apart from Antarctica) has recorded a record high since 1960. The Antarctica figure was in 1974.
Make of that what you will.
PaulM
That is so obvious, isn't it? It's amazing that it still needs to be said.
"Sea level" has got to be "in relation to land". Just as "height above sea level" has got to be a measurement of where an object is in relation to where the sea is.
If you want to measure something else then measure something else. Just don't call it "sea level".
Where is the historical perspective to all this where I believe the consensus is about 130m sea level rise since coming out of the ice age only 20 thousand years ago. 130 metres sounds scary but actually happened and humans seem to have done OK out of this radical change..( ie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Channel) The Pyramids at nearly 5000 years old and Britain being part of Europe about 10,000 years ago are all a part of our acknowledged history, why is this context always left out in the more alarmist predictions?
Also, us in Europe really do have a many thousands of year history of what has gone on in the Mediterranean with virtually no tide to confuse things and many ancient civilizations sailing boats around from ancient ports to get at least some stats/evidence from.I know the region is seismically unstable but the expert mathematical modellers but have analysed all the problems by now and come to some conclusion why the ancient Greek ports all completely submerged by now, especially with the alleged rapid sea level rise recently.
@PaulM: per my last post (and as now at WUWT’s sea level reference page) just think of it as “Global Sea Level Time Series with 0.3mm/year GIA adjustment” and you get two for the price of one - both level and volume readings. Simples.
Jack, a cartoon for you.
http://www.cartoonsbyjosh.com/ocean-duck_scr.jpg
With thanks from me!
Would somebody please, please explain to me what this sea level is that is supposed to be rising. Around our coasts (and I assume that the US east coast where the data is supposed to come from is not very different) we have a tidal range (i.e. low water to high water) of up to about 12 meters - varying constantly from day to day, week to week, year to year etc., according to the moon's position, the local pressure patterns, the local wind patterns etc., etc. What are they purporting to be measuring? The highest high? Some mean level? Or what? By the way, any concept of tidal averages is purely imaginary and certainly can't be measured in millimeters. Sounds to me like more bollocks.
I think it may be too late for Bodiam Castle- last time I went there, there was water all round it. :)
Jun 20, 2011 at 11:28 AM | Messenger
Glastonbury seems to be having the same sort of problem this weekend! Then again, its an annual occurrence and hence is climate not weather...or did I get that the wrong way round !
"The height the duck floats in the water will depend on the CO2 content of the duck.,"
Funny, I was always under the impression it was the result of Pb....
We need a hoody (too bloody cold for T-Shirts, even here in Brisbane)
"Hey Warmies, DUCK OFF"
And confuse some tree-huggers ;-)