SeaLevel.info

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Noteworthy papers -- topics:

 

Sea-level rise acceleration?

Although many climate models predict that rising CO2 levels should cause accelerated sea level rise, sea level measurements show that, thus far, in response to roughly 3/4 century of substantial anthropogenically-driven CO2 increases, there has been no detectable acceleration in the rate of sea level rise. In fact, some studies have detected small a deceleration (slowing). Here are some papers which have reported the lack of acceleration in rate of sea level rise (h/t to Alberto Boretti, Robert Dean & Doug Lord):

  1. Douglas B (1992). Global Sea Level Acceleration. J. Geophysical Research, Vol. 97, No. C8, pp. 12,699-12,706, 1992. doi:10.1029/92JC01133
  2. Douglas B and Peltier W R (2002). The Puzzle of Global Sea-Level Rise. Physics Today 55(3):35-40.
  3. Daly J (2003). Tasmanian Sea Levels: The 'Isle of the Dead' Revisited. [Internet].
  4. Daly J (2004). Testing the Waters: A Report on Sea Levels for the Greening Earth Society. [Internet].
  5. Jevrejeva S, et al (2006). Nonlinear trends and multiyear cycles in sea level records. J. Geophysical Research, 111, C09012, 2006. doi:10.1029/2005JC003229. (data)
  6. Holgate SJ (2007). On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century. Geophysical Research Letters. 34, L01602.
  7. Wunsch R, Ponte R and Heimbach P (2007). Decadal trends in sea level patterns: 1993-2004. Journal of Climatology. 5889-5911.
  8. Woodworth P, et al (2009). Evidence for the accelerations of sea level on multi-decade and century timescales. International Journal of Climatology, Volume 29, Issue 6, pages 777-789, May 2009. doi:10.1002/joc.1771
  9. You ZJ, Lord DB, and Watson PJ (2009). Estimation of Relative Mean Sea Level Rise From Fort Denison Tide Gauge Data. Proceedings of the 19th Australasian Coastal and Ocean Engineering Conference, Wellington, NZ, September 2009.
  10. Wenzel M and Schröter J (2010). Reconstruction of regional mean sea level anomalies from tide gauges using neural networks. Journal of Geophysical Research - Oceans. 115:C08013.
  11. Mörner N-A (2010a). Sea level changes in Bangladesh new observational facts. Energy and Environment. 21(3):235-249.
  12. Mörner N-A (2010b). Some problems in the reconstruction of mean sea level and its changes with time. Quaternary International. 221(1-2):3-8.
  13. Mörner N-A (2010c). There Is No Alarming Sea Level Rise! 21st Century Science & Technology. Fall 2010:7-17.
  14. Houston JR and Dean RG (2011a). Sea-Level Acceleration Based on U.S. Tide Gauges and Extensions of Previous Global-Gauge Analyses. Journal of Coastal Research. 27:409-417.
  15. Houston JR and Dean RG (2011b). J. R. Houston and R. G. Dean (2011) Reply to: Rahmstorf, S. and Vermeer, M., 2011. Discussion of: Houston, J.R. and Dean, R.G., 2011. Sea-Level Acceleration Based on U.S. Tide Gauges and Extensions of Previous Global-Gauge Analyses. Journal of Coastal Research. Volume 27, Issue 4: pp. 788-790. doi:10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-11A-00008.1
  16. Watson PJ (2011). Is There Evidence Yet of Acceleration in Mean Sea Level Rise around Mainland Australia? Journal of Coastal Research. 27:368-377.
  17. Modra B and Hesse S (2011), NSW Ocean Water Level. 21st NSW Coastal Conference. (or here)
  18. Mörner N-A, (2011a). Setting the frames of expected future sea level changes by exploring past geological sea level records. Chapter 6 of book, D Easterbrook, Evidence-Based Climate Science, 2011 Elsevier B.V. ISBN: 978-0-12-385956-3.
  19. Mörner N-A, (2011b). The Maldives: A measure of sea level changes and sea level ethics. Chapter 7 of book, D Easterbrook, Evidence-Based Climate Science, 2011 Elsevier B.V. ISBN: 978-0-12-385956-3.
  20. Boretti A (2012a). Short Term Comparison of Climate Model Predictions and Satellite Altimeter Measurements of Sea Levels. Coastal Engineering, 60, pp. 319-322. doi:10.1016/j.coastaleng.2011.10.005. (Also, an article about this paper.)
  21. Boretti A (2012b). Is there any support in the long term tide gauge data to the claims that parts of Sydney will be swamped by rising sea levels? Coastal Engineering, 64, pp. 161-167. doi:10.1016/j.coastaleng.2012.01.006
  22. Hughes W (2012), Continued existence of Maori canals near Blenheim in New Zealand indicates a stable relative sea level over 200 years. [Internet].
  23. Boretti A and Watson T (2012). The inconvenient truth: Ocean Levels are not accelerating in Australia. Energy & Environment. doi:10.1260/0958-305X.23.5.801
  24. Burton D (2012). Comments on “Assessing future risk: quantifying the effects of sea level rise on storm surge risk for the southern shores of Long Island, New York,” by Shepard, et al. Natural Hazards. doi:10.1007/s11069-012-0159-8
  25. Lüning S and Vahrenholt F (2012).  Fallstudien aus aller Welt belegen: Keine Beschleunigung des Meeresspiegelanstiegs während der letzten 30 Jahre. (Case studies from around the world: no evidence of accelerating sea level rise over the last 30 years - English translation.)
  26. Homewood P (2012). Is Sea Level Rise Accelerating? [Internet].
  27. Schmith T, et al (2012), Statistical analysis of global surface temperature and sea level using cointegration methods. Journal of Climate, 2012, American Meteorological Society. doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00598.1 (or draft)
  28. Mörner N-A and Parker A (2013). Present-to-future sea level changes: The Australian case, Environmental Science, An Indian Journal, ESAIJ, 8(2), 2013 [43-51]
  29. Scafetta N (2013a). Multi-scale dynamical analysis (MSDA) of sea level records versus PDO, AMO, and NAO indexes. Climate Dynamics. doi:10.1007/s00382-013-1771-3 (In press; preprint here.)
  30. Scafetta, N (2013b). Discussion on common errors in analyzing sea level accelerations, solar trends and global warming. Pattern Recognition in Physics. 1, 37-57, 2013. doi:10.5194/prp-1-37-2013.
  31. Plus, according to news reports, several papers suppressed by the New South Wales, Australia government. [1] [2&2b]  (Plus commentary here and here.)

 

Here's another list of peer-reviewed papers reporting the lack of measurable acceleration in rate of sea level rise:

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Sea

 

Note: Among the most extreme predictions of accelerated sea level rise are those from German climatologist Stefan Rahmstorf.

 

How long should an LTT† sea level record be?

Multidecadal oscillations in regional sea levels mean that at least 50-60 years of sea level data is required to establish a robust †Long Term Trend. See:

  1. Schlesinger, M. & Ramankutty, N. (1994), An oscillation in the global climate system of period 65-70 years. Nature, Vol. 367, pp. 723-726 (24 February 1994), doi:10.1038/367723a0 (p.1 is here)
  2. Douglas, B. (1995). Global sea level change: Determination and interpretation. Reviews of Geophysics 33(S1): doi:10.1029/95RG00355. issn: 8755-1209.
  3. Douglas B (1997). Global Sea Rise: a Redetermination, Surveys in Geophysics, Vol. 18, No. 2-3 (1997), 279-292, doi:10.1023/A:1006544227856
  4. Klyashtorin, L. (2001), UN FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 410: Climate Change and Long-Term Fluctuations of Commercial Catches - The Possibility of Forecasting, ISBN 92‑5‑104695‑6, ISSN 0429‑9345, 86 pp. (see p. 5)
  5. Jevrejeva, S., J. C. Moore, A. Grinsted, and P. L. Woodworth (2008), Recent global sea level acceleration started over 200 years ago? Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L08715, doi:10.1029/2008GL033611 (see p. 3).
  6. Zervas, C. (2009), NOAA Technical Report NOS CO-OPS 053, Sea Level Variations of the United States, 1854 - 2006 (see p. xiii)
  7. Scafetta, N. (2012), "...an interval of just 30 years is the worst that can be chosen because it is half 60-year cycle, and it happened that for SLR the period 1975-2005 had this 60-year cycle during its warming phase (the temperature warming phase was about 1970-2000). So, if you fit the last 30-40 years you get an overestimation of the real trend." [private communication]
  8. Chambers, D., M.A. Merrifield, and R. S. Nerem (2012). Is there a 60-year oscillation in global mean sea level? Geophys. Res. Lett., doi:10.1029/2012GL052885 (and two related articles)
  9. Lüdecke H-J, Hempelmann A, & Weiss C O (2013). Multi-periodic climate dynamics: spectral analysis of long-term instrumental and proxy temperature records, Clim. Past, 9, 447-452, 2013, doi:10.5194/cp-9-447-2013, and related article.
  10. Scafetta, N (2013c). Discussion on climate oscillations: CMIP5 general circulation models versus a semi-empirical harmonic model based on astronomical cycles. Earth-Science Reviews. 126, 321-357. (pdf) doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2013.08.008.
  11. Scafetta, N (2013d). Solar and planetary oscillation control on climate change: hind-cast, forecast and a comparison with the CMIP5 GCMs. Energy & Environment. 24(3-4), 455496. (pdf) doi:10.1260/0958-305X.24.3-4.455.
  12. Also, Scafetta N (2013a), above.

 

Science

“What passes for science includes opinion, arguments-from-authority, dramatic press releases, and fuzzy notions of consensus generated by preselected groups. This is not science.”  Climatologist John Christy, Sept. 20, 2012

What a mess!

 

The Scientific Method is what distinguishes “science” from other types of study. It is an algorithm or process for investigating the physical world. Here's how it is supposed to work, in seven steps:

  1. The scientist observes the available data.
  2. He formulates an hypothesis to explain the observations.
  3. He derives testable predictions from the hypothesis.
  4. He devises tests or observations to test the testable predictions.
  5. He does the tests or makes the observations.
  6. If the test results match the predictions, he cries “eureka!” and publishes. He can now properly call his hypothesis a theory or theoretical model. He publishes it along with his data and detailed calculations, so that other scientists can reproduce and verify his work.
  7. If the test results fail to match the predictions, the theory is said to be “falsified,” so he discards or revises it and starts over at step 2, with the new observations or test results added to the body of available data.

 

Step 7 is the test of a scientist's integrity. If, instead of discarding or revising falsified theories or models, a disappointed researcher revises the data, to make it fit his predictions, he's no scientist worthy of the name.

 

Unfortunately, much of what passes for "science" these days fails that test. Here is some recommended reading:

  1. What is Science?, by Richard Feynman, 1966.
  2. Cargo Cult Science, by Richard Feynman, 1974. (h/t Simon)
  3. Getting Along Without Doomsday, by Bryan Magee, 1975. (h/t Prof. Thayer Watkins)
  4. Aliens Cause Global Warming, by Michael Crichton, 2003.
  5. The Peer Review System: Is Climate Science Politically Corrupt? by John L. Daly, 2004.
  6. Why Most Published Research Findings Are False, by John P. A. Ioannidis, 2005. PLoS Med 2(8): e124. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124.
  7. A Junk Science Christmas Carol, Steven Milloy, Fox News, December 22, 2005.
  8. The Wegman Report, 2006, highlights, and an article.
  9. Cereal-induced gender selection? Most likely a multiple testing false positive, by Stan Young, Heejung Bang & Kutluk Oktay, 2008.
  10. Tricking Yourself Into Cherry-Picking, by Lucia Liljegren, 2009.
  11. How Science Will Get Rid Of The AGW Dogma, by Maurizio Morabito, 2009.
  12. Deming, data and observational studies: A process out of control and needing fixing, by Stan Young & Alan Karr, 2011.
  13. Scientific Heresy, RSA 2011 Angus Millar lecture, by Matt Ridley.
  14. Trust Your Science? Open Your Data and Code, Victoria Stodden, Amstat News, American Statistical Association, July, 2011 (or pdf).
  15. Open Your Minds and Share Your Results, editorial in Nature, 2012, and discussion.
  16. Trust-me science, by Stan Young, 2012.
  17. A textbook example of groupthink, by Paul MacRae, 2012.
  18. Statistical Follies and Epidemiology, a lecture by William Matthew ("Matt") Briggs, Ph.D., 2012.
  19. Replication studies: Bad copy, Ed Yong, Nature Vol. 485, pp. 298-300 (17 May 2012), doi:10.1038/485298a.
  20. How a scientist becomes a con man, by Yudhijit Bhattacharjee, NY Times Magazine, 2013, and commentary by Bruce Webster, Geoff Brown, and Janet Stemwedel (& part 2).
  21. Redefine misconduct as distorted reporting (how to cope with an epidemic of scientific misconduct), Daniele Fanelli, Nature Vol. 494, p. 149 (14 February 2013), doi:10.1038/494149a.
  22. Opinion: A Wolf in Sheeps Clothing, Edward Archer, The Scientist, Oct. 22, 2013. (Discussion here.)
  23. Revised standards for statistical evidence, Valen E. Johnson, Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, Oct. 9, 2013 (print Nov. 11, 2013), doi:10.1073/pnas.1313476110. (See also the discussion at WUWT, esp. Prof. Robert G. Brown's comment here, and the article in Nature here.)
  24. Unreliable research: Trouble at the lab, The Economist, Oct. 19, 2013 (or here).
  25. Scientific Groupthink and Gay Parenting, Richard E. Redding, adapted from Politicized Science, Society, Vol. 50, Issue 5, pp. 439-446 (October 2013), doi:10.1007/s12115-013-9686-5.
  26. The Availability of Research Data Declines Rapidly with Article Age, Timothy H. Vines, et al, Current Biology, Dec. 19, 2013, doi:10.1016/j.cub.2013.11.014. Discussions here and here.
  27. A Finger On the Scales, by Kevin W. Glass, Townhall.com, Jan. 25, 2014.
  28. Modelling the effects of subjective and objective decision making in scientific peer review, Park, Peacey & Munafò, Nature Vol. 506, pp. 93-96 (6 February 2014), doi:10.1038/nature12786. The paper is paywalled, but I contacted one of the authors, and he kindly sent me a copy. Here are a few quotes.
  29. To make science better, watch out for statistical flaws, by Tom Siegfried, ScienceNews, February 7, 2014. (See also the discussion at WUWT.)

 
Here's another excellent list of articles about the troubled state of what passes for "science" these days:  http://skepticalswedishscientists.wordpress.com/scientific-method/

 

Other

  1. U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Minority Staff reports: on the UEA-CRU leaked emails, 'Consensus' Exposed: The CRU Controversy, Feb. 23, 2010, 84 pp; and Critical Thinking on Climate Change, July 18, 2013, 23 pp.
  2. Memorandum submitted by the Institute of Physics to the UK Parliament. The IOP concluded that the Climategate emails "provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law."
  3. GAO Report: Climate Monitoring - NOAA Can Improve Management of the U.S. Historical Climatology Network, GAO-11-800, Aug. 2011 (or here)
  4. For information on the 2010-2012 North Carolina Sea-Level Rise political fight, see the sealevel.info Resources page.

 

 

Note:  this page can be loaded as a document by Microsoft Word 2003 or later, or free LibreOffice Writer.