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):
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.
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.
Mörner N-A (2010a). Sea level changes in Bangladesh
new observational facts. Energy and Environment. 21(3):235-249.
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.
Mörner N-A (2010c). There Is No Alarming Sea Level
Rise! 21st Century Science & Technology. Fall 2010:7-17.
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.
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.
PJ (2011). Is There Evidence Yet of
Acceleration in Mean Sea Level Rise around Mainland Australia? Journal
of Coastal Research. 27:368-377.
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.
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:
(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
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
Gregory, White, Church, et al (2014).
Twentieth-Century Global-Mean Sea Level Rise: Is the Whole Greater than the Sum of the Parts?
American Meteorological Society, Volume 26 Issue 13 (July 2013).
(See abstract: “...a
relationship between global climate change and the rate of [Global Mean
Sea Level Rise]... is weak or absent during the twentieth century.”)
Mitchell W, Chittleborough J,
Ronai B, and Lennon G W (2000), Sea
Level Rise in Australia and the Pacific, in the Proceedings of the Pacific Islands Conference on Climate
Change, Climate Variability and Sea Level Rise, Australian National Tidal Facility (NTF), 3-7 April 2000.
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)
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).
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]
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
Fedor Baart, Pieter H. A. J. M. van Gelder,
John de Ronde, Mark van Koningsveld, and Bert Wouters (2012). The Effect of the 18.6-Year Lunar
Nodal Cycle on Regional Sea-Level Rise Estimates. Journal of Coastal Research Volume 28, Issue 2: pp. 511-516.
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:
The scientist observes the available data.
He formulates an hypothesis to explain the observations.
He derives testable predictions from the hypothesis.
He devises tests or observations to test the testable predictions.
He does the tests or makes the observations.
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.
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.
“It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong.” - Richard Feynman (1964)
Unfortunately, much of what
passes for “science” these days fails that test. Here is some recommended reading:
Scientific method: Statistical errors,
Regina Nuzzo, Nature Vol. 506, pp. 150-152 (13 February 2014), doi:10.1038/506150a.
"P values, the 'gold standard' of statistical validity, are not as reliable as many scientists assume."
This was one of the papers featured in a Science News Daily "Cluster" report.
Offline: What is medicine's 5 sigma?
by Richard Horton, The Lancet, Volume 385, No. 9976, p.1380, 11 April 2015.
“Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.
Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory
analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for
pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn
U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public
Works Republican Staff has issued several very
informative Reports on Climate Change, the Climategate scandal, and related topics.
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."
GAO Report: Climate Monitoring - NOAA Can
Improve Management of the U.S. Historical Climatology Network,GAO-11-800,
Aug. 2011 (or here)