From Watts Up With That?
Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach (@weschenbach on X, my personal blog is here)
I came across a most interesting study about the claimed acceleration in sea levels. For fifty years, we’ve been told that global warming would cause the rate of sea level rise to accelerate. The theory was that increasing temperatures would both cause the ocean water to expand and would also melt land ice and glaciers. Both of these would combine to cause acceleration in the rate of sea level rise.
The study in the Journal of Marine Science and Engineering is entitled A Global Perspective on Local Sea Level Changes.
From the abstract (emphasis mine):
We used two datasets with local sea level information all over the globe. In both datasets, we found approximately 15% of the available sets suitable to establish the rate of rise in 2020.
Geographic coverage of the suitable locations is poor, with the majority of suitable locations in the Northern Hemisphere. Latin America and Africa are severely under-represented. Statistical tests were run on all selected datasets, taking acceleration of sea level rise as a hypothesis.
In both datasets, approximately 95% of the suitable locations show no statistically significant acceleration of the rate of sea level rise. The investigation suggests that local, non-climatic phenomena are a plausible cause of the accelerated sea level rise observed at the remaining 5% of the suitable locations.
I laughed out loud when I read this.
Why?
Because for the last fifteen years, I’ve been saying the same thing.
Here are my past posts on the subject, along with an AI summary of each one. When I collected them all up, I was surprised at how many analyses I’d written on the question
2011‑01‑08: Uses long tide‑gauge records to show that strong claimed acceleration in sea‑level rise is not evident in the observational data.
2017‑07‑19: Fits quadratics to PSMSL tide gauges and reports that average acceleration is effectively zero, contradicting high‑end alarmist claims.
2017‑07‑30: Extends the “brakes” analysis to satellite altimetry, arguing that purported acceleration is not robust.
2018‑12‑17: Dissects how processing choices and model assumptions manufacture an apparent acceleration in sea‑level records.
2019‑02‑20: Discusses model fitting and effective degrees of freedom, concluding that any fitted acceleration in sea‑level series is statistically weak.
2020‑03‑08: Re‑examines tide‑gauge records and reiterates that global data do not support a strong, coherent acceleration signal.
2021‑02‑21: Shows that NOAA’s splicing of TOPEX/Jason records creates an artificial acceleration that largely disappears with consistent treatment.
2021‑03‑02: Uses long UK tide‑gauge series to show modest, nearly linear rise with no policy‑relevant acceleration.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/02/the-uneasy-sea/embed/#?secret=5hpfXaKmSi#?secret=rNdIeC1yQJ
2022-03-02: Argues that tide-gauge and satellite data show no consistent long‑term acceleration in global sea‑level rise, undermining claims of a looming sea‑level “climate emergency.”
2022‑12‑29: Highlights a high‑profile reanalysis that, consistent with your earlier work, finds little or no acceleration once TOPEX issues are corrected.
2024‑05‑05: Reviews spatial tide‑gauge trends and notes that dramatic CO₂‑driven acceleration still fails to appear in the observational data.
2025-05-05: Compares NASA/JPL and NOAA/Colorado satellite series, arguing the supposed acceleration is an artifact of an improper splice and inconsistent processing.
So … can we put this question to bed?
There is no evidence of acceleration in the actual tide gauge sea level data, and the apparent acceleration in the satellite data is merely an artifact of splicing disparate satellite records.
Further deponent saith not.
Tonight, here on the forested hillside, rain, blessed rain here in drought-prone California. The plants are rejoicing.
My very best to all, with wishes for good times with your families, laughter with your friends, and sunlight far-reaching on the sea …
w.
AS USUAL, I ask that if you disagree with anything I wrote, please QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS and SHOW us (not just claim) why it is wrong. Avoids endless unnecessary disputes.
Share this:
Discover more from Climate- Science.press
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.