New Paper Finds No Acceleration In Sea Level Rise

By Paul Homewood


h/t NotricksZone


I have long highlighted the fact sea level rise during the first part of the 20thC was just as high as now. In between, sea level rise slowed down considerably.

These sort of oscillations make it imperative that sea level trends are measured over much longer periods. Leading oceanographer, Bruce Douglas, often said that you needed to look at periods of 50 to 60 years.

In a new paper Parker and Ollier have analysed several large datasets of tidal gauge records, and conclude that sea levels have been oscillating about the same trend line during the last century and this century.




Long records of sea level show decadal and multi-decadal oscillations of synchronous and asynchronous phases, which cannot be detected in short-term records. Without incorporating these oscillations, it is impossible to make useful assessments of present global accelerations and reliable predictions of future changes of sea level. Furthermore, it is well known that local sea-level changes occur also because of local factors such as subsidence due to groundwater or oil extraction, or tectonic movements that may be either up or down.


Limited data from limited areas of study are, therefore, unsuitable for making predictions about the whole world sea level. Yet, people continue to make such predictions, often on an alarming scale. Here, we use one example to illustrate the problems associated with trying to make sea-level predictions based on a short record (25 years) in a limited region.


Linear and parabolic fittings of monthly average mean sea levels (MSL) of global as well as different local (United States Atlantic Coast, United States Pacific Coast) data sets of long tide gauge records.


It is clear from the analyses of the tide gauges of the “NOAA-120”, “US 39”, “PSMSL-162”, “Mitrovica-23”, “Holgate-9”, and “California-8” data sets and the United States Pacific and Atlantic coasts that the sea level has been oscillating about the same almost perfectly linear trend line all over the 20th century and the first 17 years of this century.


It is of paramount importance to discuss the proper way to assess the present acceleration of sea levels. This can not be done by focusing on the short-term upward oscillations in selected locations. The information from the tide gauges of the United States does not support any claim of rapidly changing ice mass in Greenland and Antarctica. The data only suggest the sea levels have been oscillating about the same trend line during the last century and this century.


This section of the paper is particularly revealing:



The loud divergence between sea-level reality and climate change theory—the climate models predict an accelerated sea-level rise driven by the anthropogenic CO2 emission—has been also evidenced in other works such as Boretti (2012a, b), Boretti and Watson (2012), Douglas (1992), Douglas and Peltier (2002), Fasullo et al. (2016), Jevrejeva et al. (2006), Holgate (2007), Houston and Dean (2011), Mörner 2010a, b, 2016), Mörner and Parker (2013), Scafetta (2014), Wenzel and Schröter (2010) and Wunsch et al. (2007) reporting on the recent lack of any detectable acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise. The minimum length requirement of 50–60 years to produce a realistic sea-level rate of rise is also discussed in other works such as Baart et al. (2012), Douglas (1995, 1997), Gervais (2016), Jevrejeva et al. (2008), Knudsen et al. (2011), Scafetta (2013a, b), Wenzel and Schröter (2014) and Woodworth (2011).

As an example of short-term measurement in a limited area, we consider the results of Davis and Vinogradova (2017). They consider time windows of only 25 years and only selected locations along the East Coast of North America. They neglect all other information in their selected locations and ignore results from other locations such as the West Coast of North America. Nevertheless, they draw global conclusions about sea level and the mass change in the ice of Greenland and Antarctica that per them has occurred since 1990.

Aim of this paper is to show that the information from the tide gauges of the USA and the rest of the world when considered globally and over time windows of not less than 80 years (but 120 years, or twice the quasi-60 years’ periodicity, work even better) does not support the notion of rapidly changing mass of ice in Greenland and Antarctica as claimed by Davis and Vinogradova (2017). The sea levels have been oscillating about a nearly perfectly linear trend since the start of the twentieth century with no sign of acceleration. There are only different phases of some oscillations moving from one location to another that do not represent any global acceleration.


In their Discussion, Parker and Ollier are even more scathing:

Davis and Vinogradova (2017) overrate the positive acceleration which they claim occurred after 1990 in one location by using a parabolic fitting of only 25 years of positive monthly average mean sea-level oscillations about the 60 years’ linear trend. They claim there was an acceleration of up to 0.3 mm/year2 after 1990. That is two orders of magnitude larger than the legitimate values. It is nothing but deceptive to infer global acceleration trends from short records while ignoring additional information from same tide gauges or tide gauges in other locations.


November 1, 2017 at 06:15AM

2 Comments on “New Paper Finds No Acceleration In Sea Level Rise

  1. If you actually want to understand clkimate change, you can try where all and any questions will be answered. It has two versions, one for scientists and one for those with little science. I suggest you try the latter.


  2. How dare you use the word science in your title, you know nothing about science, you’re yet another of the pathetic science deniers who can’t even believe the evidence of their own eyes. I’ve witnessed several storm surges where I live which flooded houses that are now unensurable because insiurance companies know what you clearly don’t. Just denying facts is the mark of the stupid. You’re so stupid you lack even the ability to see how wrong you are.
    So climate covers a lot of disciplines does it?

    Perhaps that’s why scientists from LL Nations and from these disciplines are involved:

    Atmospheric and Physical Sciences:

    Atmospheric dynamics,
    Atmospheric physics,
    Atmospheric chemistry,
    Solar physics,
    Historical climatology

    Earth Sciences:

    Soil Science,
    Palaeoenvironmental reconstruction

    Biological Sciences:

    Synthetic biology,
    Global change biology,
    Ecological genetics

    Mathematics, Statistics and Computational analysis:

    Applied mathematics,
    Mathematical modelling,
    Computer science,
    Numerical modelling,
    Bayesian inference,
    Mathematical statistics,
    Time series analysis

    And they all agree it is happening and was caused by human emmissions.

    Any and all who pretend they have evidence to disprove this are paid shills of vested interests such as fossil fuel, who have been disseminating misinformation for decades for one reason; MONEY. BP have admitted they did this, it’s on record, and BP are now investing heavily in renewable energy, having realised they were wrong and now must get up to speed. Unfortunately you are to stupid to be capable of ever understanding or admitting you’re wrong. Nit picking minutiae and attempting to draw others off into peripheral arguments over nothing, is a familiar way you liars work. Obfuscation is all you can think of since the evidence is overwhelming and becoming more so with the passing of time. You probably got much of your ‘information’ from the lying representative for big oil, the appalling liar Lord Lawson, who has been totally discredited among intelligent people, but still kleeps dishing out the bullshit for people like you. Like you he isn’t a sc ientist either.

    You’re doubtless American, the most dedicated bread heads in the world for whom if something hasn’t got a pricew it’s worth nothing, or Australian, since few of them have the ability for critical thinking, being descended from the rejects of Europe, as were many original settlers in America; many religious deviants left Europe, and good riddance.

    You’re clearly unable to make observations yourself, to notice thw world around you, to know the environment and see changes such as flowering of plants being two months ahead of where it was for many thousands of years, because of the extra heat, which is what they react to. So plants know what’s going on better than you. How does that make yoiu feel?

    Animal species also are moving north to colder temperatures, this can be observed in all countries; Most of Africa is becoming desert and will not support life in the future. Lowlying areas of the US are being flooded repeatedly and will eventually disappear into the sea. Don’t buy property on the Florida Kees, in fact anywhere in Florida or the Mexican Gulf coast. Masny other countries are going to lkose lowlying land, and island nations will cease to exist. Already some are making arrangements to evacuate, and you say sea level isn’t rising. Dick head.

    What do we call a scientist who disagrees with 99 other scientists despite evidence being overwhelming they are right? An old man with a book to sell. Every alleged ‘scientist’ you epsilons dig up from the dim end of Youtube, is an emeritus [that means retired by the way] with a book but not many brain cells still functioning. Many of the claims that scientists support your ludicrous idea turn out to be sociologists, which may sound like a scientist to you, but isn’t.

    The theory of how global warming works has been known for centuries. The science investigating it has been working for decades and all results are worse than anticipated. Computer models go so far, but then real time measurements make them revise predictions. Many scientists involved in climate research are shocked and becoming ever more concerned at the speed it’s happening, and at the feed-in mechanisms they hadn’t included. It’s all catch-up because it should have been done a hundred years ago, and action to counter it should have been ongoing since then. As it is, we are now looking at the fictional 2 degrees politicians agreed they would like it to stop at is now being revised and it’s calculated that at the end of the century it will be 3 degrees warmer, and if you had just a glimmer of understanding of the science you would know that is catastrophic; it means a sea level rise of several metres, and spells disaster for a worldwide mercantile system with everything interdependent. And all you can say is it’s a conspiracy. I’m just surprised you can read and write.


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: