Sea level rate of change

I understand there are three ways for geology to affect seal level. Post-glacial isostatic rebound, local land subsidence (often from local fluid withdrawal), and water being pulled differently by gravity from ice or rock. This is not a clear explanation of the third, but it is a thing and different from the other two.

Just one among many studies of isostatic rebound, with nice images:

www.ngs.noaa.gov/CORS/Articles/2006GL027081.pdf

Land subsidence would occur at smallest scales. Perhaps there is a general review of that topic? Otherwise it would be many site-by-site studies.

If there are examples of published climate studies ignoring geological effects on 'net' sea level, we could have a look. Actually we've done similar before but I have to search archives for that.

 

A land subsidence review:
www.iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/9/9/091002/pdf

 

I remember that we discussed a particular study that chose 50 (out of many more) US tidal gauges to look for trends. Did not show up by searching here. Maybe remembering wrong, or maybe someone can post a link?

 

Only a warming denier would claim as such.

 

Because apparently only deniers have the ability to be honest.
Take subsidence ,measure sea level rise ,then adjust that figure by dishonestly ADDING to that figure accounting for isostatic rebound(which has nothing to do with rising sea levels either) .
Pure BS.

 

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140414/ncomms4635/abs/ncomms4635.html

From 2014, how to detect accelerations in trend, possibly already in BobW collection.

They used only a few sites with long records and corrected for isostatic rebound. AFAIK all serious studies do so; they are reviewed prior to publication. OTOH one could pick a Norway site for example and not correct for isostatic rebound, and obtain opposite result. Might find an affinity website interested in featuring that.

 

New article about SLR

https://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3325.html

(behind porous paywall)

Another about OHC

Consensuses and discrepancies of basin-scale ocean heat content changes in different ocean analyses
Gongjie Wang et al.
Clim Dyn DOI 10.1007/s00382-017-3751-5

(open access)

 

Its amazing how a satellite can accurately measure a fraction of a millimeter increase ,in a body of water with 30 meter waves.
Its beyond amazing ,its unbelievable.

 

Averaging over thousands of kilometers of ocean surface, and over long time periods, easily takes care of large transient
waves.

Signal processing techniques are indeed amazing. We can detect millivolts of DC shifts or tíny other AC signals superimposed on large AC signals, though not with a single data point. Thousands or millions or billions of data points must be processed and averaged.

 

Millimeters, inches... Sea level has been 400 feet lower, and there's about 200 feet worth of ice on Antarctica/Greenland.

 

ice cores from both polar regions show rapid +T at end of glacial periods and slower -T descending into glaciations. Using the sea-level equivalents of stored ice stated just above, we can calculate average +SLR during the melting times of 18 mm/year. During glaciation, sea level falls at 3 mm/year.

When the most recent glaciation was melting fast, +SLR was 17 mm/year according to coral records and similar. So there is concordance between these two separate lines of evidence.

Now there is much less ice to melt. Have suggested before than such rapid melt rates would not be sustainable throughout loss of the 60 meters (sea-level equivalent) of remaining ice. This does not exclude possibility that a few of those meters could 'come off' quickly. If there are some fragile bits here and there. Any century of more than 1 meter of SLR (10 mm/year) would require substantial rapid changes in how humans use coastal areas.

For context, sea levels were rising 1 to 2 mm/year until the most recent (warmer) decades. Now. 3 to 3.5 mm/year.

+++
Have linked above to some recent publications about SLR. Nature Communications bundled up several others:
Sea level rise research in Nature Communications

 

Satellite snafu masked true sea-level rise for decades : Nature News & Comment

 

Following describes a meeting presentation; not yet reviewed and published. Worth reading though as it shows that there are proxies not yet 'read' that may inform our understanding of SL dynamics:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170808145933.htm

 

Sea level for planetary temperature:

Taking the Pulse of the Planet - Eos

 

Nice read. Slow moving and less whimsical inertia of our heat sink. Good to point out to denialists (still unlikely to change their beliefs):

The large fluctuations in GMST and its sensitivity to natural variability mean that using this measurement to argue that global warming is (or is not) happening requires care. An excellent example is the 1998–2013 period, when energy was redistributed within Earth’s system and the rise of GMST slowed [Yan et al., 2016].

By contrast, the OHC and sea level increased steadily during this period, providing clear and convincing evidence that global warming continued.​

 

Ocean and atmosphere are our two interacting fluids dealing with energy imbalance in time and space. Not equal partners; ocean about 270 times more massive. Each has characteristic circulation patterns and 'sloshes'.

This being one&only Planet, improved knowledge of all such details would be valuable even in a time of stable climates.

All those Argo 'ocean reporters' seem used for temperature vs. depth. There is much more to be learned about ocean dynamics though, and maybe these will make a large contribution.Y'all heard that Paul Allen (rich guy) is providing Argo funding now?