New peer reviewed study sinks claims of sea level rising

In a study certain to embarrass the UN IPCC and certain New Zealand bloggers, a new peer reviewed study has found estimates of sea level increase over the past century have been wildly overestimated:

The eight researchers, hailing from France, Spain and the United Kingdom, obtained a global-average rate of geocentric sea-level rise for the past century, ranging from 1.55 to 1.61 mm/year, depending on whether or not one outlier (of 28 individual regions) was included or omitted from their analysis.

What it means
Wöppelmann et al. say their results are "in good agreement with recent estimates," citing the 1.7 mm/year value derived by Church and White (2006) and Holgate (2007), and that they are also "in good agreement with the sum of steric sea level and land ice contributions estimated by Leuliette and Miller (2009) over the recent period of 2003-2007 (1.5 mm/year) using altimetry, Argo, and GRACE gravity observations." Hence, it would appear that 20th-century sea level rise has not been in any way unusual, even over the most recent decade of supposedly unprecedented warmth

Climate extremists have claimed rising sea levels are drowning Pacific atolls, and on target to cause up to two metres of sea level increase by 2100. However, based on corrections made to existing data by this study, sea level rise by 2100 is now estimated at six inches, or 15cm, which incidentally is close to the 20cm figure I noted as possible on page 214 of Air Con (albeit I was being conservative, and on p215 went for a final figure of 30cm by 2100.

To give credit where it's due, buried deep in the UN's AR4 report is an admission that past century sea level increases may indeed have been overestimated and if so that future increase could be as low as 13cm by 2100.

Wow. Break out the kayaks.

Comments

[AcidComments]

"Climate extremists have claimed rising sea levels are drowning Pacific atolls, and on target to cause up to two metres of sea level increase by 2100. "

What's the real Inconvenient Truth is some of these Pacific Islands along with the Maldives problems they've had with alleged storm surges and flooding.

Some of their 'Folly' is manmade alright it's of their own making. It hasn't anything to do with AGW/CC which is a convenient copout.

It's to do with dredging coral reefs. Which causes less protection from natural tidal storm surges and in some cases damming lagoons and turning them into Rubbish dumps. So the surrounding nearby land is now prone to flooding!

[CM]

"....in the UN's AR4 report is an admission that past century sea level increases may indeed have been overestimated and if so that future increase could be as low as 13cm by 2100."

The IPCC reports are extremely conservative, which is a direct result of the arduous process used. Exactly how are they certain to be embarrassed? That makes no sense. I thought THEY were meant to be the alarmists?

[Ian Wishart]

The IPCC reports, properly read, are reasonably constrained...but the summaries for policymakers written by PR people and politically-motivated scientists are a joke.

As it turns out, the extremely conservative view of sea level rise (business as usual in tidal terms) looks like it might be on the money.

[CM]

The 20 million in Bangledesh will be very relieved.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8240406.stm

I hope they all get a copy of the study.

[CM]

Well there have always been rather large uncertainties around how much of the Greenland ice sheet would disappear.

I take it you've read the full Wöppelmann et al study?

>>>However, based on corrections made to existing data by this study, sea level rise by 2100 is now estimated at six inches, or 15cm<<<

Can you point to where I can find these corrections?

This RC page discusses the Summary for Policymakers in relation to sea level rise. It quotes the relevant parts. Which are the politically motivated parts?

[CM]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/the-ipcc-sea-level-numbers/

[Ian Wishart]

See my latest post

[CM]

As a response to what exactly?

[CM]

"Scientists at a climate change summit in Copenhagen said earlier UN estimates were too low and that sea levels could rise by a metre or more by 2100.

The projections did not include the potential impact of polar melting and ice breaking off, they added.

The implications for millions of people would be "severe", they warned.

Ten per cent of the world's population - about 600 million people - live in low-lying areas."

"Dr John Church of the Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research added: "The most recent research showed that sea level is rising by 3mm a year since 1993, a rate well above the 20th century average.""

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7935159.stm

So all that is wrong now?