2010 North Carolina Sea-Level Rise Assessment Report

A Critique

By Dave BurtonMember, North Carolina Sea Level Rise Risk Management Study Advisory

Committee (NC SLRRMS)

NC-20 Sea Level SymposiumNew Bern, NC Oct. 7, 2011

Slides will be here: tinyurl.com/nc20burton

How Much Sea Level Rise Should We Expect by 2100?

The Danger: Planning or Regulation?

“For the past 30 years, our policies and strategies have been based on a SLR rate of 1-foot to 1 1/2-feet per century.

However, based on the recommendation from the CRC’s Science Panel on Coastal Hazards (March 2010), the NC Coastal Resources Commission has adopted a rise of 1 meter by 2100 for planning purposes. This accounts for an accelerated rise.”

2010 DCM Assessment and Strategy Document, p. 12

The Danger: Planning or Regulation?

“Sea level Rise: Rising sea level is a threat to coastal and riparian wetlands in North Carolina...

[Tide] gauge data specific to North Carolina are available only for 20 years, but suggest a... rate of approximately 4.57 mm per year (1.5 ft per 100 years). …

Rising sea levels will inundate large areas of the Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula...”

2010 DCM Assessment and Strategy Document, p. 15

The Danger: Planning or Regulation?

“The Science Panel's report... goes on to recommend that the CRC adopt a rise of one meter by 2100 as a planning level. The report represents a secure foundation upon which the CRC can proceed to pursue program changes...

The Science Panel's report is ready to be translated into policy... for changes to the regulatory program.”

2010 DCM Assessment and Strategy Document, pp. 106-107

Claim:

(p.3): “This report synthesizes the best available science on SLR as it relates specifically to North Carolina.”

No, it doesn’t!

Climate misinformation is rampant

http://www.nsf.gov/about/history/nsf0050/arctic/seaice.htm

On the National Science Foundation web site…

For example…

Climate misinformation is rampant

http://www.nsf.gov/about/history/nsf0050/arctic/seaice.htm

…and any competent high school science teacher could tell you that it scientifically impossible.

On the National Science Foundation web site… for 6.5 years!

Climate misinformation is rampant

National Science Foundation reply:

Subject: FW: error on NSF sea ice page (NSF0050)

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We are checking with program staff in the Office of Polar Programs to determine what changes are needed, and will take the appropriate action. NSF Office of Legislative and Public Affairs Webmaster

Claim:

(p.3): “This report synthesizes the best available science on SLR...”

No, it doesn’t!

But the Report’s problems are far from unique.

• What does “sea level” mean?• (p.6): “Sea level is the average height of the

sea with respect to a conceptual reference surface called the geoid.”

Terminology (minor)

Problem # 1Science Panel Report

• Mid-ocean vs. Coastal Measurement

• Satellite vs. Tide Gauges

• “RSL” = Local Mean Sea Level (LMSL) (which is what matters!)

• What the Report calls “MSL” (or just “sea level”) = Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL)

Terminology (minor)

Problem # 1Science Panel Report

Claim (p.6): “Currently, MSL is rising at a rate of approximately 2 mm per year (0.08 inches/yr) if averaged over the last hundred years…”

Historical rate of SLR (minor)

Problem # 2Science Panel Report

• “2 mm/year” (Science Panel’s estimate)?• Both median & geographically-weighted

average of best tide gauge records (GLOSS-LTT) yield 1.1 mm/year (global average)

• But LMSL varies widely by location

Problem # 2Science Panel Report

159 GLOSS-LTT tide gauges

The best long-term sea level data we have

• 1985: the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) created the Global Sea Level Observing System (GLOSS)

• Sea level data from a global network of tide stations.

• 159 tide stations with long (avg. ~85 year) measurement records

• Monitor long term sea level trends around the world

• One of the gauges is in Wilmington!

159 GLOSS-LTT tide gauges

• Simple average: 0.6 mm/year

• Median: 1.1 mm/year

• Geographically-weighted average: 1.1 mm/year *

* Geographical weighting – how far apart for independence?

* Geographical weighting – how far apart for independence?

* Geographical weighting – how far apart for independence?

Result: ~1.1 mm/year is a pretty good estimate of GMSL rise

Weighting function 1

Conclusion: IPCC exaggerates the actual, measured, average rate of coastal MSL rise by at least 50%

MSL Trend

+1.090 mm/yr (measured, median)

+0.611 mm/yr (measured, avg1, equal station weights)

+0.458 mm/yr (measured, avg2, equal station-year weights)

+1.133 mm/yr (measured, distance-weighted avg) ± 0.113 mm/yr

+1.8 mm/yr (IPCC claim)

Subsidence & uplift

• Crust of the earth floats on a ball of molten magma, and it’s sloshing!

• Post-glacial rebound (GIA) – mostly uplift

• Water, oil & natural gas wells – subsidence

• Northeastern NC has less bedrock than SE NC

IPCC AR4 (2007)(the fine print)

“Trends in tide gauge records are corrected for GIA using models, but not for other land motions.”[AR4, WG1, Sec. 5.5.2.1]

John Daly

"The impression has been conveyed to the world's public, media, and policymakers, that the sea level rise of 18 cm in the past century is an observed quantity and therefore not open to much dispute. What is not widely known is that this quantity is largely the product of modeling, not observation, and thus very much open to dispute, especially as sea level data in many parts of the world fails to live up to the IPCC claims."

and around 3 mm per year (0.12 inches/yr) over the last fifteen years.

Problem # 3Science Panel Report

Claim (p.6): “Currently, MSL is rising at a rate of approximately 2 mm per year (0.08 inches/yr) if averaged over the last hundred years,

Mythical acceleration

The rate of MSL rise has increased in response to global warming.”

1.1

• “2 mm/year” (or 1.1 mm/year) comes from averaging coastal tide station LMSL trends

• “3 mm/year” is measurement of a different quantity (satellite-measured mid-ocean sea level).

Problem # 3Science Panel Report

Mythical acceleration

2010 NC SLR AR predicts huge acceleration in SLR

Problem # 3Science Panel Report

Mythical acceleration

• No actual increase in rate of SLR in last ~80 years!

Problem # 3Science Panel Report

CO2 is up…

but…+1 ppm/yr +2 ppm/yr

Tide gauges show no acceleration

(Graphs downloaded from NOAA.gov)

Tide gauges show no acceleration

200 years of data

Tide gauges show no acceleration

At 25% of the GLOSS-LTT tide stations, LMSL is falling

Tide gauges show no acceleration

(Not since 1930, anyhow)

Tide gauges show no acceleration

Tide gauges show no acceleration

Wilmington is the only GLOSS-LTT tide station in NC

Tide gauges show no acceleration

Last 20 years:

Full record(76 years):

But what about satellite data?

we have about 18 years of it, now

(But see “Great Sea Level Humbug.pdf ” link at nc-20.com)

Satellites show no acceleration

IPCC’s ThirdAssessment Report (2001)

“observational finding of no acceleration in sea level rise during the 20th century.”

Satellites show no acceleration in SLR,tide stations show no acceleration in SLR,SO, where does CRC get their projected

acceleration?

• Church & White (2006)

• Confusion

• Confirmation Bias

• Rahmstorf (2007)

Church and White (2006)Their claim: “A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise.”

• But “no 20th century acceleration has previously been detected” by other researchers.

• Most of their acceleration was in the 19th century!

• For the 20th century alone, their error bar extended down to zero.

Church and White (2006)

“much of the acceleration occurr[ed] in the first half of the 20th century...”

Church and White (2006)

“much of?” Try all of it!

All the 20th century acceleration occurred before 1930.

Church and White (2009)In 2009, they posted updated data to their web site. I applied their regression analysis method to the new data…

orange line = minimum-variance unbiased estimator quadratic fit = deceleration

7”

Church and White (2009)

“…thank you for drawing our attention to the smaller acceleration for this second data set. … you are correct that the acceleration is smaller in the second analyses … For the 1901 to 2007 period, again we agree with your result and get a non-significant and small deceleration.” (June 18, 2010 email attachment)

I told Drs. Church & White about it. Dr. Church replied:

FactGlobally averaged rate of coastal Sea Level Rise, as measured by tide gauges, has not increased (accelerated) in 80+ years.

But the Science Panel Report claims, “The rate of MSL rise has increased in response to global warming.” (p. 6)

Sources for the error:

• Church & White (2006)

• Confusion

Acceleration myth

Confusion

Satellite vs. tide gauges(apples vs. oranges)

If you chart sea levels from coastal tide gauge data until 15 years ago, but then switch to using satellite data, you’ll create an illusion of acceleration for the last 15 years.

Confusion

Believe it or not, both the Science Panel and the IPCC make this error!

IPCC: “For the period 1993 to 2003, the rate of sea level rise is estimated from observations with satellite altimetry as 3.1 ± 0.7 mm yr–1, significantly higher than the average rate... It is unknown whether the higher rate in 1993 to 2003 is due to decadal variability or an increase in the longer-term trend.” [AR4, WG1, Ch 5, p. 387]

(Google “IPCC Sea Level Nature Trick”)

Confusion

Believe it or not, both the Science Panel and the IPCC make this error!

Science Panel: “Currently, MSL is rising at a rate of approximately 2 mm per year (0.08 inches/yr) if averaged over the last hundred years, and around 3 mm per year (0.12 inches/yr) over the last fifteen years...”[2010 NC SLR AR, p.6]

Sources for the error:

• Church & White (2006)

• Confusion

• Confirmation Bias

Acceleration myth

Bias

NASA JPL Climate Symposium, Oct 24, 2009 (Lee=Leung Fu)

Bias

Bias: Cherry-picking?GLOSS-LTT

• 23 Tide Gauges out of 159

• 70% have LMSL trends < claimed 2 mm/yr

“An additional spatially uniform field is included in the reconstruction to represent changes in GMSL. Omitting this field results in a much smaller rate of GMSL rise...”Church & White (2006)

Strange stuff

Problem # 4Science Panel Report

“A drawback to tide gauges in North Carolina, in addition to their small number, is that most of them don’t extend back in time more than 50 years, making it difficult to resolve changes in the rate of rise over the decades.”[2010 NC SLR AR, p.6]

50 years?

• Wilmington: 75 years• Southport: 75† years• Beaufort: 58† years• Duck: 24* years!

† With gaps

* 32 years available for Duck, but only 24 used

“For the purposes of this report, the Science Panel feels most confident in the data retrieved from the Duck gauge, given its installation, continuous length of service and lack of influence by maritime navigation projects.” [2010 NC SLR AR, p.10]

Dredging?

• Might affect MSL slightly

• But would affect range (MHW-MLW) more

• I graphed MHW-MLW for 1978-2002 for Duck, Wilmington, Beaufort & Southport

• No “dredging signal” apparent

Why Duck?

Problem # 5Science Panel Report

Sources for the error:

Acceleration myth

• Church & White (2006)

• Confusion

• Confirmation Bias

• Rahmstorf (2007)

“the Science Panel believes that the Rahmstorf method is robust and 1.4 meters a reasonable upper limit for projected rise.” [2010 NC SLR AR, p.11]

Problem # 6Science Panel Report

The “Rahmstorf method” is an ad hoc heuristic to predict SLR.Claim: rate of SLR is proportional to global average temperature level: “with a proportionality constant of 3.4 millimeters/year per °C.”

Since SLR hasn’t accelerated for 80+ years, either:

• Not derived from analysis of any physical mechanism, and• Is contradicted by the historical record

1. Rahmstorf’s method is nonsense, or

2. Global average temperature has not risen

More on Rahmstorf’s Method here: tinyurl.com/rahmstuff

“the Science Panel believes that the Rahmstorf method is robust and 1.4 meters a reasonable upper limit for projected rise.” [2010 NC SLR AR, p.11]

Problem # 6Science Panel Report

“In hindsight, the averaging period of 11 years that we used in the 2007 Science paper was too short to determine a robust climate trend....”[Stefan Rahmstorf's 2009 mea culpa, on the RealClimate blog ]

“It turns out that Rahmstorf has pulled an elaborate practical joke on the Community…” [Steve McIntyre]

• Rahmstorf “projected sea-level rise in 2100 of 0.5 to 1.4 meters above the 1990 level.” (110 years)

• 2010 NC SLR Assessment Report projects for a 90 year period

Problem # 7Science Panel Report

“The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC, 2007) contains forecasts for global average SLR ranging from 0.18 meters to 0.59 meters (7 to 23 inches) by the year 2100 AD. … IPCC estimates are conservative because contributions to SLR from melting Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are uncertain…” [2010 NC SLR AR, p.7]

Problem # 8Science Panel Report

All of the IPCC scandals have been about their exaggeration of global warming and its effects:

“Conservative?”

• Climategate• “Hockey stick”• Melting Himalayan glaciers goof• Extreme weather events error [1]

• African crop yield error• WWF sourcing scandal

“The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC, 2007) contains forecasts for global average SLR ranging from 0.18 meters to 0.59 meters (7 to 23 inches) by the year 2100 AD. … IPCC estimates are conservative because contributions to SLR from melting Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are uncertain…” [2010 NC SLR AR, p.7]

Problem # 8Science Panel Report

Melting ice sheets?

“It is now widely agreed that major loss of grounded ice and accelerated sea level rise [from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS)] are very unlikely during the 21st century.”[IPCC TAR WG1, Executive Summary]

EAIS hasn’t melted in millions of years

Greenland was warmer in 1930s & the MWP, w/o catastrophic melting

Claim: “In summary, there is consensus that the rate of SLR will increase during the 21st century and beyond...”

Problem # 9Science Panel Report

“A majority of broadcast meteorologists are skeptical of alarmist global warming claims and find the UN IPCC untrustworthy” [Jan-Feb GMU poll of AMS & NWA credentialed broadcast meteorologists]

“Consensus?”There’s not even consensus on CO2-induced warming!

“Consensus?”

• Harris polled 500 leading American Meteorological and Geophysical scientists in 2007. 52% said warming is anthropogenic, 30% said not.• 52% is no consensus!• (Even before Climategate!)

And evidence for CO2-driven SLR acceleration is weaker than for warming....

• CO2 is up, SLR is not

• Last ¾ century of anthropogenic CO2 (>30% increase) caused no acceleration in SLR.• Irrational and unscientific to presume that next ¾ century will be different.

…because…

Problem # 10Science Panel Report

“A one meter (39 inch rise)… only requires that the linear relationship between temperature and sea level that was noted in the 20th century remains valid for the 21st” [2010 NC SLR AR, p. 12]

• Nonsense claim misquoted (w/o attribution) from 2nd-to-last paragraph of Rahmstorf (2007)

• “linear relationship between temperature and sea level” was not claimed by Rahmstorf (he said rate of sea level rise)

• Not “only requires” – It also requires accurate (and extreme) temperature predictions

• Wrong anyhow: no such relationship in 20th century

Summary• 2010 NC SLR Assessment Report is riddled with errors.

It…

Summary• Cherry-picked a single, outlier tide station (Duck, NC)• Used just 24 years of data• Conflated coastal tide gauges with mid-ocean satellite

data, creating the illusion of increased rate of SLR• Used discredited “Rahmstorf 2007” methodology • Exaggerated even his predictions• Didn’t mention that SLR hasn’t accelerated in 80+ years• Projected one meter (39”) SLR by 2100 is absurd!• Realistic projection for Wilmington and Southport is only

about 6” - 10” (twice that for Duck)

2010 North Carolina Sea-Level Rise Assessment Report

A Critique

By Dave BurtonMember, North Carolina Sea Level Rise Risk Management Study Advisory

Committee (NC SLRRMS)

NC-20 Sea Level SymposiumNew Bern, NC Oct. 7, 2011

Slides will be here: tinyurl.com/nc20burton