Skip to content

UCS Forget To Mention Subsidence

October 14, 2014
tags:

By Paul Homewood 

 

image

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/10/08/tidal-floods-sea-level-rise/16873241/

 

 

 

USA Today are the latest to try to boost circulation by recycling the UCS alarmist propaganda on sea level rise. They quote some scary numbers without mentioning once that the bulk of the rise is due to subsidence.

For instance at Norfolk, oceanographers have identified that a combination of post glacial sinking and comet impact crater subsidence is causing the land to sink at a rate of 2.72mm/year.

According to NOAA’s tidal gauges, sea level rise at Norfolk (Sewells Point) has been 7.39 inches (yes, UCS cannot even get their numbers right!). Of this, 4.7 inches is accounted for by subsidence, leaving a modest 2.7 inches of absolute sea level rise, about 6 inches/century.

Sea levels have been rising at Sewells Point at this sort of rate since records started in 1928.

Moreover, sea level rise has actually decelerated in recent years, rising by 45mm in the last ten years, which is lower than the long term rate of rise. 

 

index

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8638610

 

 

 

But why worry about facts when propaganda is the order of the day!

from → Climate Change
5 Comments
  1. Andres Valencia permalink
    October 14, 2014 3:48 pm

    Thanks, Paul.
    Inconvenient truths like subsidence pop up all the time. How inconvenient is that?
    It is so inconvenient it drives some people to lie.

    • David permalink
      October 14, 2014 6:34 pm

      As far as I know all five of the global sea level data producers adjust for subsidence in their published data.

      For example, see the CU sea level research unit’s FAQ response to this: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/faq#n3113

      • Paul Homewood permalink*
        October 14, 2014 8:21 pm

        Wrong. What they do is ADD a GIA adjustment to the satellite sea level surface measurements to “allow” for the fact that the ocean bottom is sinking. In other words, they say that if the bottom was not sinking, the sea level at the surface would be rising.

        The bottom may be sinking, as it has for thousands of years, but the tidal gauges, which they splice their new data onto, only reflect surface sea levels, and therefore should be compared with the “satellite surface” measurements, and not the adjusted ones.

        But you are missing the point, David.

        All of the figures quoted by UCS (and me) are actual “relative sea levels” from tidal gauges, and therefore include both the effects of land sinking/rising and absolute sea level changes.

  2. Scott Scarborough permalink
    October 14, 2014 8:20 pm

    45 mm is 1.77 inches you claim a rise of in 10 years. That seems like a higher rate than the 2.7 inches in 44 years you claimed earlier in the article.

    • Paul Homewood permalink*
      October 14, 2014 8:30 pm

      Scott

      The 45mm includes the effect of subsidence, and therefore should be compared with 7.39 inches over 44 yrs, i.e. 4.3mm/yr.

      The current rate is slightly higher, but still less than the 4.57mm/yr recorded since 1928.

      (I tried to avoid mixing inches and mm, but the UCS and NOAA used each!!!)

Comments are closed.