Sea Level – Fact Check

August 21, 2023 rjdavison

CSS-46 – Sea Level – Fact Check Download PDF

CSS-46 I have looked at sea levels and their relationship to climate change many times in the past. I was recently fact checked on a document that reviewed an RBC sponsored Goodside report: The Good Guide To: Learning About Climate Change. I had reviewed the 31-page document back in January 2022. The authors are journalists, and it shows. After reviewing just a little over one page, I had 17 pages of empirical data and discussion that easily refuted “the science” laid out by the authors. I stopped analyzing every statement at that point and switched to a general discussion. My rebuttal can be found on my website (for those that are interested). But this post is not about RBC’s Goodside Report. This is about “fact” checkers. Unless they are in court, then they officially become opinion checkers.

#climatechange #delaythegreen #globalwarming #showusthedata

The fact check (from a significant authoritative organization that will remain nameless since they all follow the same modus operandi) was over a relatively simple straightforward statement (shown below). As an aside, I wonder if I can assume everything else in my 30-page rebuttal met with their approval since there was no mention of the rest of the document?

“The tide gauges at the Battery in New York are representative of other tide gauge data around the world. The magnitude of the perceived sea level rise or fall can change (i.e.: the land itself may be rising, falling or stationary), but the long-term trends are generally straight lines. Meaning that sea level rise is not accelerating despite the continually increasing CO₂ levels.”

The statement above was accompanied by a screenshot of The Battery, NY’s tide gauge data from NOAA’s Tides & Currents – Sea Level Trends site. NOAA provides the same plot (and other variations) for every tide gauge station. And they all have linear or very close to linear trends. For The Battery, NY, the difference between the linear and quadratic regression fits is statistically insignificant. The “Goodness of Fit” (R²) values are 0.8397 and 0.8455, respectively. A logarithmic regression was also conducted, yielding an R² of 0.8380, essentially the same. The 6^th order polynomial R² was slightly better (0.8479) but that is just mathematics, not climate science. There can be some deviations at the beginning and the end of the datasets. But those are very likely temporary deviations that will adjust back to the long-term linear trend as the ocean cycles change their temperature phase. So, whether the fact checkers like it or not, the individual tide gauge data is effectively linear and are not showing any significant acceleration. My statement was/is valid and accurate.

The argument against my statement is based on the consolidated sea level rise data. Two studies (a 2019 Nature Paper and a 2018 IPCC Report) were put forward that supposedly show acceleration. And based on their cherry-picked data, they are correct. When you incorporate all the data, that acceleration does not hold up very well. The first study only highlighted the sea level trends from 1960 to 2018 (ignoring over 50% of their shown data). Sea levels have been rising steadily since 1856. Note, we will address the pre-1856 declining sea levels later. While there are accelerations and decelerations throughout that 167-year sea level rise history, the overall trend remains linear. The recent data (post 1960) does show acceleration (by starting with a decelerating period (shallow incline) followed by an accelerating period (sharper incline). Apart from ignoring early data, they also ignore the natural cycles that have been acting on the sea levels and will continue to act on sea levels in the future.

The 60-year Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) is very visible in the sea level data and will bring the sea level back to the long-term trend as we move into the AMO cold phase (i.e.: deceleration), just like usual. We could even end up with declining (not just decelerating) sea levels as we move into the Grand Solar Minimum (GSM) forecasted by NOAA (and others). The sea level decline pre-1856 coincides with the Dalton Minimum. A very cold period that had virtually nothing to do with CO₂ (since CO₂ levels (although rising slightly) were almost flat over that period). Even the ocean cycles could not reasonably be expected to produce the sea level decline experienced pre-1856. Something else must be acting as a radiative force. What could it be? Did I mention that the decline occurred in a Solar Minimum? Maybe, just maybe, the reduced energy from the sun may have played a role, producing colder temperatures and declining sea levels. And unless I am mistaken, if sea levels were declining and they were, that would suggest that the cooling was global. Maybe the Little Ice Age (LIA) did exist (despite the IPCC’s decision to recycle the already debunked “hockey stick” in their last report).

The 2018 IPCC report was even more flagrant, comparing two periods that completely ignore the natural cycles, while blatantly cherry picking the period durations. The 1900 to 1990 period (90 years, SLR – 1.44 mm/year) was compared to the 2006 to 2015 period (just 9 years, SLR – 3.60 mm/year). So, while correct for the periods chosen, the acceleration comparison is virtually meaningless. The SLR from 1856 to 1878 (a 22-year period) was 2.92 mm/year. The SLR from 1900 to 2010 (a 110-year period) was 1.99 mm/year. That is an argument for deceleration, and I could cherry pick periods that produce even larger decelerations. The entire dataset needs to be used and the proper perspectives are required. Do not forget that sea levels were declining pre-1856. That important detail does not fit the alarmist narrative.

These so-called fact checkers are laughable but make no mistake they hold significant power and are a vital tool in promoting ideological censorship if you speak out against the “official” narrative (regardless of the subject). My statement was 100% valid, but that does not mean I am correct in the eyes of the true believers. If I am censored, NOAA should be right there beside me in social media jail since the analysis is theirs’ not mine. A little tip for the fact checkers, if you believe that CO₂ is responsible for all the climate change since the pre-industrial level, CO₂ must correlate to all the data over that period. CO₂ does not correlate to the sea level data. Not very convenient for the alarmist narrative.

Goodside – Learning About Climate Change Report
NOAA – Tides and Currents
Reviewing the RBC Sponsored Goodside Climate Change Reports

Persistent acceleration in global sea-level rise since the 1960s
Sea Level Rise and Implications for Low-Lying Islands, Coasts and Communities
W. Eschenbach – Sea Level Rise Accelerating? Not.

CSS-18 – Sea Levels and Climate Drivers
CSS-33 – Sea Level Rise – Is There Acceleration?
OPS-23 – Sea Levels
OPS-43 – Glaciers and Sea Level

NASA – PODAAC – Frederikse et al 2020
NASA – Vital Signs – Sea Level
NASA Earth Observatory – Satellite Sea Level – ENSO Influence

National Oceanography Centre – Jevrejeva et al 2014 – Sea Level Data

For more perspective and more detailed analysis, you can check out some of the following posts. Remember Sea Levels were changing prior to the data shown in this post. And no CO₂ was not responsible for very much of those changes.

RBC sponsored Goodside report: The Good Guide To: Learning About Climate Change.

Click to access Goodside-eBook_CO2-Educate.pdf

Reviewing the RBC sponsored Goodside Climate Change Reports