Plagiarism, Lies and Bullshit - Part 1

Back in April this year, Anthony Watts gave prominence to a "paper" by Nils-Axel Mörner & A. Parker - Australian sea level data highly exaggerated, only 5 inches by 2100. It's clear that neither he, nor any of the commenters on that post actually appear to have read the "paper", or if they did didn't do so with a critical or sceptical eye. Are they all sceptics in the general sense, or not? I'm an AGW sceptic, and I'm also a sceptic in the general sense - I believe nothing I read until I've checked out its conclusions, claims, methodology, and sources in detail. I've done all those checks on the "paper" (I use inverted commas deliberately), and have found all that this post's title implies. The "paper" is titled "Present-to-future sea level changes: The Australian case", and can be found here.

Mörner & Parker claim that the Australian government, aided and abetted by Australia's National Tidal Centre. a branch of the Bureau of Meteorology, have adopted an "exaggerated" figure for recent sea-level rise as "official". None of their cited sources contain the figure, nor statements of recent acceleration as claimed  - it's a "straw man". Indeed, the NTC takes pains to stress the short-term nature of the trends reported for its 16 SEAFRAME stations managed by their Australian Baseline Sea Level Monitoring Programme (ABSLMP), and warns against placing reliance on the data at present. There's a term which describes making unsupported claims, as M&P have done here, especially when the cited sources actually say just the opposite.

Astonishingly, this "paper" contains no data whatsoever to support its "conclusions". Despite having claimed to analyse "86 stations", there is no list of any stations analysed, no tables of results and just one chart for Fremantle, which in fact neatly refutes one of the claimed results (and more besides). Several "analyses" are claimed to have been carried out, but aren't mentioned again, and so no results or summaries are given. Not a single station trend for any relevant period is quoted.

Even more astonishing is not even a list of the 16 "ABSLMP" (Australian Baseline Sea Level Monitoring Programme) stations, which are supposedly central to the "paper" is given. The reader is left in the dark; reproducibility, a central requirement of published papers, would be impossible without a deal of research on the part of anyone attempting the process. I'm not in that position however - I've been studying all aspects of Australian sea-levels in some depth over recent years. Because of that knowledge, and the spreadsheets and charts to hand, I knew instantly that the claimed summary results were fiction. How much of a fiction will be seen below. The author(s) appear to believe that 1990-2010 spans 20 years, a figure they mention several times.

This is their claimed methodology:

We fit linear and 2nd order polynomial lines to the sea level data recorded along the coasts of Australia in order to assess the accelerating trends and to compare with the reconstruction of Church and White[12]. 

If Y is the mean sea level (MSL) and X is the year, then clearly the sea level rise is SLR=dY/dX and the sea level acceleration is SLA=d²Y/dX². The linear fitting gives the average SLR over the observation period. The 2nd order polynomial fitting gives the average SLA over the observation period.

There's no further mention of  any "2nd order polynomials" at all. "The 2nd order polynomial fitting gives the average SLA over the observation period." - no it doesn't, it gives the equation for a curve.

What about "rebutting" several prominent authors on sea-level rise?

Out of this highly variable spectrum, Douglas [16] selected 25 records and arrived at a mean sea level rise of 1.8 mm/year, Church et al. [11] selected 6 records and arrived at a value of 1.4 mm/year, and Holgate [20] selected 9 records and arrived at 1.45 mm/year.

The word "selected" is meant to infer some kind of "cherry-picking". However, two of the three cases, you won't find the claimed figures for number of stations "selected", and in none  the claimed statistic. Comparing Australian data to global data puts it in context, and no more.

Douglas didn't "select" anything. There were only 23 (not 25) long-term stations available to analyse, and his result was global. Douglas didn't estimate a figure for overall sea-level rise. Peltier (2001) used Douglas's data, corrected for GIA, and came up with 1.84 mm/year.

Church & White (hardly "et al." at all) used 290 stations, and don't mention a set of 6 stations in any context. You'll search in vain for the "1.4" figure, their figure is 1.7 ± 0.3 mm/year.

Amazingly enough, Holgate did actually select 9 stations for analysis; his intention was to test whether a small set of high-quality, continuous (no gaps) records to "composites" of many sets of world-wide gauge data of varying lenght and quality. His estimate was 1.74 ± 0.16 mm/year, and not 1.45.

Here's a list of claimed analyses, and results given for the Australian stations:

70 "non-ABSLMP" stations 1990-2010, linear trends: average 0.1 mm year
2nd. degree polynomials for same: none
70 "non-ABSLMP" stations 1990-2000 linear trends: none
2nd. degree polynomials for same: none
70 "non-ABSLMP" stations 2000-2010: none
2nd. degree polynomials for same: none
16 ABSLMP stations 1990-2010 linear trends: none
2nd. degree polynomials for same: none
All 86 stations 1990-2010, linear trends: average 1.5 mm/year
and "No fitting produces a sea level rise in excess of 1.5 mm/year".

Those last two claims alone demonstrate that the "results" aren't results at all. - they're fabricated. If the average of the 86 is 1.5 mm/year, then some must have been lower, and some higher, but we're told none was higher than 1.5 mm/year. Therefore they must have all been identical at 1.5 mm/year, yet we're told that 70 of the 86 averaged 0.1 mm/year. Also, of the 70 stations that averaged 0.1 mm/year, some must have been higher, and some lower, with many negative. Now that would have been remarkable, in the scientific sense - news to broadcast. M&P haven't even realised the implications of their laughable "statistics".

Check out that last claim against my analysis of the "86 stations" - actually 85. Six stations are so remote from Australia they aren't relevant at all - thousands of km away. I've included them however, to get overall statistics to compare. I've started my list beginning on the north Queensland coast in the Gulf of Carpentaria, progressing clockwise via Tasmania to Milner Bay, Northern Territory, which is also on the Gulf, ending with the remote and decidedly non-Australian stations.

Station 32 is Sydney, which we're told had a "negative trend", though we aren't informed what it was -  details later.

Stations  65-79 are on the W and NW coasts; 66 is Fremantle, 77 is Darwin. 80-85 are "off the map" and very distant. Spaces on the charts indicate that no meaningful analysis for those stations was possible because of very limited data for the period. There were no zero trends, and none was negative.

Full station details are shown in the table at the end of this post.

The average for all stations is 4.05 mm/year, with standard deviation 2.51, minimum 0.17 mm/year, maximum 9.38 mm/year. The average for the 16 ABSLMP stations is 4.35 mm/year (not quoted by M&P, though central to their theme), and that for "non-ABSLMP" stations is 3.90 mm/year. Contrast those figures with the claims of M&B-P, 0.1 mm/year for the "non-ABSLMP" stations, and 1.5 mm/year overall.

There's a claim that the trend fo Sydney was negative over this period, but In fact it's positive over 1990-2010, and more positive over the actual 20 years 1991-2010. Here's the proof, with both trends:

Trends for Sydney, 1990-2010 and 1991-2010                                            Data Source: NTC

Strangely no trend figure is given for one of the most analysed stations worldwide, though perhaps not so strange because it must by now be clear that M&P haven't analysed any Australian stations over "20 years", nor over 21 years either. I intend to keep this post reasonably short and to the point, but what about the "plagiarism" and "bullshit"? Disinformation, and its partner in crime, unadulterated bullshit, is present throughout, like some constant and annoying in-store muzak. Here's a glaring (and hilarious) example:

The sea level changes along the Australian coastline have been measured at many locations starting in the late 1800s. In the early 1990s, the Australian Baseline Sea Level Monitoring Project was designed in order to monitor the sea level changes around Australia and to identify decadal trends with respect to the enhanced greenhouse effect. A sequence of SEAFRAME[36] stations (SEA-Level Fine Resolution Acoustic Measuring Equipment) was installed on 16 South Pacific islands to measure the sea level and to record meteorological parameters (both at stations previously covered by standard tide gauge equipment and stations previously not covered by tide gauges). The vertical stability of the gauges is surveyed by State organizations using GPS.

That's novel, installing tide-gauges on Pacific Islands to measure sea-level around Australia. This gives "telemetry" a whole new meaning. I'll poke around in some more ordure in Part 2 which will follow very shortly.  What about plagiarism? surely not? On page 3 is stated (my bold):

Previously , the National Tide [sic] Centre analyzed all tide gauge data from stations having more than 25 years of recording. This survey ended in year 2003, and was replaced by the ABSLMP data set containing the measurements restricted to the 16 ABSLMP stations. Nowadays, NTC neglects all the data previously measured at these stations as well as at other sites, many of which exceed 25, and sometimes 50, years of recording.

The NTC replaced the National Tidal Facility of Australia (NTFA ) in January 2004. Why is he scolding the NTC for ceasing the issue of reports at all? Why is he bemoaning the loss of reports with linear trends? Trends which he says are "misleading"? His charge against the NTC is that they produced a "misleading statistic" concerning the ABSLMP stations. They did not, and would not have done, as I'll explain later - his citations are fake - they don't contain what he claims, nor anything remotely resembling what he claims.

The reason for his charge of "neglect" will soon be clear. Figure 1 in the "paper", is said to represent the full-record rates for 39 stations with "long-term" (25 years or more) of data in 2009. If data was available to end 2010, you might ask as I did, why quote the number of such stations for 2009 if you had data for "all stations" to 2010? Also why analyse that data to 2009 - a long-term station in 2009 is also a long-term station in 2010. "many of which exceed 25, and sometimes 50, years of recording" - doesn't he know how many in each category? In fact it's most, not many which exceed 25 years in 2010, and it's just two which exceeded 50 years - Fremantle and Sydney.

Here's Figure 1, with the legend "AUSTRALIA" in large friendly letters, in case anyone might be unable to identify what it represents.

There's already a problem - Mörner&Parker (Parker is actually Alberto Boretti, more in Part 2) couldn't have analysed the 39 stations on that map; one of them (Port Adelaide Inner Harbour) ceased operation after 2008, and since the data was virtually identical to Port Adelaide Outer Harbour (hardly surprising!) the NTC pulled the record from the data webpage in 2010, well before M&P say they accessed the data. How do I know that the station is represented on the map? Is my knowledge of Oz stations encyclopaedic? Yes and no, it's extensive (ahem!), but I know exactly which stations that map shows, because as it happens, I have a copy of the map myself, a nice crisp and unfuzzy one, along with a table of station results, in a July 2010 report produced by the NTC. It's a report which M&P (or just Mörner?) took pains to claim (above) wasn't produced after 2003, and is titled "Australian Mean Sea Level Survey 2009"; the graphic is on page 8:

Note the caption - Mörner's map is captioned

Figure 1 : Distribution of tide gauge station [sic] in Australia. Location and average rates of the 39 tide gauge stations in mainland Australia having a period of recording of at least 25 years. The mean rate of all 39 stations is 0.9 mm/year.

That caption implies by omission that the 39 figure is the most recent, though it applies to 2009 only, as the text states. Ignoring the fact that "mainland Australia" on the map includes three islands (Tasmania's hard to miss, and the names "Booby Island" and "Lord Howe Island" are a bit of a give-away). Mörner's graphic is fuzzy, with degraded colours and showing all the signs of having been taken from a screenprint, with aliasing artefacts in the image. I'll compare sentences (in sequence) from the two paragraphs preceding Mörner's map (M&P) with bulleted points from page 1 of the NTC report (NTC) reproduced below. You'll note from the page shown below that the sequence of statements is identical:

M&P:  In 2009, there were 39 sites on the Australian mainland (Figure 1), where relative sea levels had been measured for at least 25 years and with the average length being 42 years .
 NTC:  There are 39 Australian locations where relative sea levels have been measured for at least 25 years. The average length of these records is 42 years.

M&P:  The average trend of all the 39 stations is 0.9 ±1.9 mm/year.
NTC:  The average trend from all 39 stations is 0.9 mm/yr with a standard deviation of 1.9 mm/yr.

Following that statement, the NTC report says

Some of the stations exhibit unrealistic trends due to undocumented datum shifts. A more realistic average trend obtained from 29 stations within 1 standard deviation of the mean is 1.4 mm/yr with a standard deviation of 0.7 mm/yr.

Mörner missed  that bit out. I wonder why?

M&P:  The geographical pattern of relative sea level trends around the Australian coastline is fairly uniform (Figure1).
NTC:  The geographical pattern of relative sea level trends around the Australian coastline is fairly uniform in general.

M&P:  Parts of the Australian coastline are strongly affected by the ENSO events.
The longest sea level records show quasi bi-decadal sea-level oscillations.
NTC:  Annual mean sea levels around the Australian coastline are strongly correlated with the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) signal. Annual mean sea levels generally fluctuate in accordance with the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI).
The longest sea level records show decadal sea-level oscillations with periods of around 20 years.

NTC: The Australian Mean Sea Level Survey is updated annually.

There's nothing wrong of course, with using graphics, nor quoting text, from someone else's publication(s), if citations are given. In this case however, Mörner has not only failed to cite the source, he's explicitly said it doesn't exist! There's only one word for that - plagiarism, compounded by a blatant lie to cover his tracks. He's simply pinched the summary stats from the NTC report to 2009, including the standard deviation. None of the other claimed results include a standard deviation. Plagiarism is intellectual theft, and when blatant lies are added, the result is fraud.

Would a "sea level expert" really need to lift almost an entire page from a NTC report? From an organisation he's criticising? The hypocrisy is staggering! Not only that, but the number of long-term stations, and the statistics themselves, which apply to the period to 2009, and aren't exactly relevant here. Data was available to 2010, so why not do the trends and quote results to 2010? Mörner claims to have analysed 86 stations to 2010, so the spreadsheets should have been available. I say "claims", because there's not one scrap of evidence any such analyses were done, in fact just the opposite.

In a "paper" which claims to have analysed "all 86" Australian stations, 39 overall and 86 over the last two decades to 2010, amounting to some 297 trend analyses and 258 polynomial fittings, you'd expect several tables, a few sample charts, even a list of stations at the very least, wouldn't you? They're supposed to be there to inform the reader, summarise the results, and not least to show evidence that the work's been done, and that the summary results are valid. The sum total is one long-term chart for Fremantle, and a rather small bunch of totally unsupported statements. Statements which don't in fact  reconcile. And this heap of crap was given prominence on WUWT, of which a commenter there recently said "Everyone knows nobody gets away with bad science or math here".

Why on earth try it on to this extent? Mörner's relying on his target audience being uncritical and chauvinistic, generally ill-informed about sea-level in general, Australia in particular, and he's also confident that not one of them will check on anything he writes. None of those characteristics apply to yours truly. I've found evidence that Boretti-Parker is not an honourable man either, inclined to bend truth into fiction. He (as Boretti) is listed on the Principia Scientific website as a contributor - it's the lair of the "Sky-dragon slayers". Enough said, I think.

There are other claims in the "paper" - it might have been sub-titled "This paper is bought to you by the number 1.5", including a ludicrous claim to have analysed "all 2059 PSMSL stations". I'll shred that in Part 2. What's really ironic is that along the the Pacific coast of N & S America, tide-gauges do indeed show very low rates of rise, even a fall over recent decades, something Mörner denies. That's a strange contradiction, as he also denies any increase in global sea-levels. Unfortunately, no-one informed all the other tide-gauges worldwide of this "great truth"; for them it's "business as usual".

The M&P "paper" isn't just bad science - it's a total lack of science backed up by no data whatsoever - science fiction. The clues, in the form of "bad math", inconsistencies and disconnects are evident to anyone with a critical and sceptical eye. Those on WUWT, posters and commenters, who uncritically accepted a "paper" so thin you can read small print through it, need to re-examine their critical and sceptical faculties and motives.

Part 2, in which I turn over the ordure with a long stick, and explode more Mörner myths, coming very soon.

APPENDIX

NTC data for all stations here, and PSMSL data and charts here - search the page for Darwin; stations are listed clockwise from there. Values are mm/year.

	Averages for all stations, clockwise
	Station	1990- 2010	Running mean	Omiitted value
1	Mornington Island, QLD	Insufficient data		8.61
2	Karumba	7.94	7.94
3	Weipa	6.92	7.43
4	Booby Island	6.25	7.04
5	Goods Island	7.67	7.20
6	Thursday Island	2.00	6.16
7	Turtle Head	6.96	6.29
8	Ince Point	8.20	6.56
9	Port Douglas	3.85	6.22
10	Cairns	1.83	5.74
11	Mourilyan Harbour	1.40	5.30
12	Lucinda	3.11	5.10
13	Townsville	2.63	4.90
14	Cape Ferguson *	2.78	4.73
15	Abbot Point	Insufficient data		11.7
16	Bowen	2.29	4.56
17	Shute Harbour	2.33	4.41
18	Mackay	2.08	4.27
19	Hay Point	1.24	4.09
20	Rosslyn Bay *	3.36	4.05
21	Port Alma	1.60	3.92
22	Gladstone	1.43	3.79
23	Bundaberg	0.94	3.66
24	Urangan	0.28	3.50
25	Mooloolaba	1.52	3.41
26	Brisbane	3.19	3.41
27	Gold Coast Seaway	3.22	3.40
28	Norfolk Island, NSW	7.04	3.54
29	Yamba	0.93	3.44
30	Lord Howe Island	3.41	3.44
31	Newcastle	1.66	3.38
32	Sydney	1.25	3.31
33	Botany Bay	2.45	3.28
34	Port Kembla *	1.6	3.23
35	Eden	1.23	3.17
36	Stony Point, VIC *	1.71	3.13
37	Lakes Entrance	Insufficient data
38	Hovell Pile	5.31	3.19
39	Melbourne	2.38	3.17
40	Point Richards Channel	Insufficient data		5.14
41	Geelong	2.29	3.14
42	Point Lonsdale	0.35	3.07
43	Port Welshpool	Insufficient data
44	Queenscliff	2.93	3.07
45	West Channel Pile	2.30	3.05
46	Lorne *	2.46	3.03
47	Portland *	2.84	3.03
48	Devonport, TAS	Insufficient data
49	Low Head	Insufficient data
50	Spring Bay *	3.11	3.03
51	Hobart	0.17	2.96
52	Granville Harbour	Insufficient data
53	Burnie *	2.98	2.97
54	Victor Harbor, SA	2.02	2.94
55	Port Stanvac *	4.52	2.98
56	Port Adelaide	5.08	3.02
57	Port Giles	4.40	3.05
58	Wallaroo	2.53	3.04
59	Port Pirie	6.96	3.12
60	Whyalla	0.59	3.07
61	Port Lincoln	3.34	3.07
62	Thevenard *	3.34	3.08
63	Esperance, WA *	4.10	3.10
64	Albany	4.50	3.12
65	Bunbury	3.47	3.13
66	Fremantle	5.27	3.16
67	Hillarys *	7.84	3.24
68	Geraldton	6.12	3.29
69	Carnarvon	5.69	3.33
70	Exmouth	6.42	3.38
71	Onslow	6.93	3.44
72	King Bay	6.83	3.49
73	Cape Lambert	7.43	3.55
74	Port Hedland	8.12	3.62
75	Broome *	9.32	3.71
76	Wyndham	9.38	3.79
77	Darwin, NT *	7.78	3.85
78	Gove Harbour	5.69	3.87
79	Milner Bay *	7.54	3.92
80	Cocos Islands *	7.86	3.98
81	Macquarie Island	6.84	4.02
82	Casey, ANT	6.22	4.05
83	Commonwealth Bay	Insufficient data
84	Davis	2.29	4.02
85	Mawson	5.59	4.05
	All stations average	4.05
	ABSLMP average	4.35
	Other stations average	3.90
	Standard deviation	2.51
	Minimum	0.17
	Maximim	9.38

The Ups and Downs of Sea-level Recording

Google sometimes comes up with odd results - not the wrong results I hasten to add, but something unexpected, something novel, something revealing. Anyway, one result was a pdf which referred to Anthony Watts (Wattsupwiththat) as a "sea level expert", with a link to a WUWT post which contains the following:

IMHO The idea that a dock (or piling) is a long term stable measurement platform is simply ludicrous. Piles sink, structures decay, boats whack them, pounding wave action loosens their grip. One feature missing from all these old style tide gauges is any way to reference the long term level of the gauge itself. In the era of GPS we can start doing this, but in the years past, how much is from simple sinking of the pilings over time? When you are looking for millimeters per year, such things become significant.

Anthony Watts would hardly describe himself as a "sea level expert", but that's by-the-by. The post was discussing sea-level past and present in the Maldives, and curiously for such a topic, presented no sea-level data whatsoever. However it's Anthony's statement "One feature missing from all these old style tide gauges is any way to reference the long term level of the gauge itself" which I'm concerned with here. I could criticise him for that statement, written in ignorance, but I'll just ask the question "Can you think of any method of establishing the level of land surface, buildings, or anything attached to the land?". if you can't, go to the bottom of the class. If you thought "surveying" or it's more technical term "levelling" you go to the top. There is indeed a "way to reference the long term level of the gauge itself". Here's a photograph of a  surveyor engaged in that very process next to the Funafuti, Tuvalu SEAFRAME station in January, 2009:

Source: SOPAC

He's using a modern state-of-the-art instrument termed a "total station". The model he's using is one of the best. It can measure to 0.5 arc-seconds in elevation and traverse - that's 1/7200 of a degree, and to 1 in 1,000,000 in line-of-sight distance, which is 1 mm in 1000 metres. The latter is achieved using laser-ranging, also used to continuously monitor the height of the instrument above the benchmark below to 0.1 mm.

I can tell you the make, model and serial number of the instrument he's using (LEICA Total Station Model TCA1800, S/N 424936), his name (Andrick Lal) and the organisation he still works for - SOPAC (Applied Geosciences Division). He was there in 2009 with Nick Brown, a  surveyor for Geoscience Australia. The details of the survey (as for all others) are published in reports on the GA ftp server and many are referenced on the GA website.

They were actually establishing the exact location and height of the tide-gauge benchmark (TGBM) wrt to the benchmarks for the CGPS (continuous GPS) pillar which is located some 2.5 km away from the gauge, but Australia's National Tidal Centre surveyors use identical equipment and techniques every year or two - this is the only Tuvalu survey I've been able to find photos for. There's a chain of an additional 12 BMs between the tide-gauge BM and the CGPS pillar BM - 14 in all.
Levelling the Funafuti CGPS pillar:

Source: SOPAC

I read somewhere that these surveys always seem to take longer on the Pacific islands than elsewhere - I can't imagine why. can you?. BTW levelling doesn't involve any adjustment - it's a measuring exercise. Some claim that CGPS is used to "automatically adjust" gauges. Nothing could be further from the truth - those that make such claims generally include a diagram of a SEAFRAME station which shows the CGPS station firmly on land. Apart from that it's not practical to do so. Few are aware of the "crustal tide" caused by the Moon, which pulls the Earth's crust up and down, synchronised with the ocean tides. At the sites of the  Funafuti stations shown above, it amounts to around 10-20 cm at peak; any automatic adjustment would lower the gauge as the ocean tide rises, and vice versa.

The point I'm making is that this process is carried out regularly and with great care and the results made available on the 'net. Not all gauge sites worldwide are levelled as frequently as those in the South Pacific Sea Level Monitoring Programme however. Most aren't the focus of attention that these islands have become. Many are relatively stable and need less frequent checking. Note that even at other sites with CGPS stations on both the gauge and on land, regular levelling takes place. The benchmark which marks the datum (reference level) for measurements is referred to as TGZ - tide gauge zero. Sometimes the nearest benchmark is above lowest water and a fixed positive offset is added to the gauge readings to give an always-positive reading - from a "virtual benchmark" in fact.

Here's a picture (looking SE) of another gauge which is relevant to the secondary theme of this post. It's the Male-B station in the Maldives, northern Indian Ocean.The gauge, or rather gauges, are on Hulule island where the airport is situated, adjacent to Malé itself.

Source: SONEL

Source: University of Hawaii Sea Level Center

The people in the background on the right aren't back-packers but are part of a University of Hawaii team, on-site to check and maintain the equipment. Looks like a helluva job to me. I don't know how they can stand all that sunshine and sea air.
I include the following description because some people (no names, no pack drill) like to give the impression that sea-level data is recorded by a man with a marked stick and a clipboard, when he can be bothered so to do. The Malé station currently has three independent gauges; a float gauge with the small dome atop on the left, a bubbler gauge with the box on top, and a radar gauge on the black bracket over the water. The two large vertical "pipes" are "stilling wells". They aren't simply open at the bottom, but have holes near the lower ends which restrict the rapid influx or efflux of water (hence "stilling") to eliminate the effect of waves, the wash of a passing boat, or a diving horse, perhaps.

The potentiometer at the top of the float gauge. The toothed metal belt carries the float.

Looking down the float gauge stilling-well; the float is centre-right at the water surface.
Source (both photos): University of Hawaii Sea Level Center

A bubbler gauge releases nitrogen gas into the water near the bottom of the stilling well. At the depth of the release valve the pressure varies with the depth of the water above, and a pressure recorder monitors the pressure of the gas as it's released. Pressure varies linearly with depth so it's easy to convert the pressure readings into an accurate depth. A temperature sensor records water temperature so consequent changes in water density and gas pressure can be allowed for.

The workings of the float gauge, and the radar gauge over the water should be fairly obvious. The dome on the central pillar contains the receiver and aerial for the CGPS (continuous GPS) station which constantly records the E-W, N-S and vertical coordinates (position) of the station. Benchmarks at the station, and three sites around up to a kilometre away provide for levelling by surveying instruments. The station collects data and transmits it to a satellite at hourly intervals and it's been recording since 1990. There's another GPS (& laser telemetry) station located some distance to the NE which is part of the DORIS system, a worldwide network used for precise determination of the JASON-1 satellite's orbit. Here's what Male-B recorded between 1990 and 2010. Bear in mind that the CGPS station recorded some millimetre-sized ups-and-downs over the last decade but they averaged out to just -0.1 mm/year fall.

Data source: PSMSL

To the south, at Gan on Addu Atoll, is another float-type gauge, with a slightly longer record but which shows a similar 13-month profile and annual trend.

Data source: PSMSL

I've never seen these charts (or any earlier version from any source) shown on any sceptical blogs. Nils-Axel Mörner has written screeds on the Maldives, but I've never seen them shown therein either. Do they show something inconvenient? What, precisely, is wrong with the unvarnished truth? Mörner has referred to them however in a 2004 paper titled "New perspectives for the future of the Maldives". I don't know when he visited the Maldives, as rather curiously, the paper doesn't give any dates.  He states in his conclusion (multiple authors, but they're his words, I'm sure)

Tide gauge data have been cited in support of an on-going rise of mean sea level (Singh et al., 2001). Tide gauge records, however, do not provide simple and straight-forward measures of regional eustatic sea level. They are often (not to say usually) dominated by the effects of local compaction and local loading subsidence. With this perspective, our multiple mor-phological and sedimentological records appear more reliable and conclusive. Besides, satellite altimetry does not record any significant rise in global sea level in the last decades (Mörner, 2003a, Fig. 2). In order fully to investigate the situation, however, available tide gauge records, now extending from 1990 to 2002, were re-examined. This reveals a total absence of any rising secular trend (Mörner, 2003b).

He's saying that tide gauge records don't provide reliable indications of sea level trends, but uses them to prove a point he's making, because he claims that what they show conveniently proves that point? There's a word (several words in fact) for that kind of thing. It's also difficult to understand how 13 to 14-year-span gauge records could possibly reveal anything about the presence or absence of a "secular trend", as in this context "secular" means long-term. He also says "extending from 1990" - the Gan record starts in 1988. Incidentally, the reference "Mörner, 2003b" was never published. There's a whole story here but it's for a future post.

I take issue with his statement that "Tide gauge records, however, do not provide simple and straight-forward measures of regional eustatic sea level. They are often (not to say usually) dominated by the effects of local compaction and local loading subsidence". They are not so "dominated", but many are affected. Many others are affected by just the opposite, where the land is rising, and sea-level rise is understated, something he fails to mention here. His term "regional eustatic sea level" is confusing and ambiguous  It's a term he's proud to have invented - eustatic means worldwide or global so he's effectively using the term "regional global sea level". It's worse than confusing and ambiguous. It's meaningless, a contradiction in terms.

In my opinion, and in the opinion of others too, the worldwide tide-gauge network provides a more reliable source of environmental data than do thermometers in weather stations. Tide gauges have inherent sources of error, they're subject to vertical movement caused by subsidence or rebound of their mountings (piers, jetties, etc) and the land or seabed beneath, but those errors can be and are identified, quantified, and allowed for by adjustment of the data. What's more. such adjustments are usually very small and full details are published on the 'net. Many gauge stations have multiple gauges as at Malé, and an increasing number use CGPS to monitor stability and record the slightest movement. Most transmit their data at regular intervals by telephone line or satellite link, so any malfunction is soon spotted. All have a linear and uniform response, unlike temperature sensors whose non-linear response has to be allowed for by the recording circuitry, and they're not subject to sensor drift which may occur for some time before it's identified. There's no equivalent of UHI either, and so far no organisation has been able to get their grubby hands on the data and homogenise it or apply suspicious "adjustments".

Extending the record - Nauru, west-central Pacific

Nauru is a small rocky island just 0.5° south of the equator. I have a slight connection with Nauru in that I was tasked with analysing rock samples from Nauru for phosphate content, many (many!) moons ago. Nauru has a SEAFRAME tide-gauge (and meteorological) installation on the west of the island, maintained by the South Pacific Sea Level and Climate Monitoring Program run by the Australian National Tidal Centre (BOM). A chart for Nauru (1993-2011) is included on the  South Pacific Sea Level reference page (sidebar top). PSMSL has data from an earlier gauge which I will refer to as Nauro-A, and the 1993 installation as Nauro-B. The overlap between the two records spans just 18 months, but the difference (due to different benchmarks used) varied little over that period, averaging 267mm.

With the data from Nauro-A reduced by 267mm until the date of the 1993 installation a reconstruction from mid-1974 to end 2011 is possible.

Note that while the overall rate is just 0.59 mm/year, the trend line is below the 13-month moving-average line on the left.

A plot of the annual rate from 1974 to the year on the lower axis confirms that the long-term rate has stabilised at just over 0.5 mm/year. Is Nauru rising from the waves, cancelling out the effect of much of the sea-surface rise?

The GPS plot from the station on Nauru seems to contradict that idea, at least between 2003 and 2009 (latest available on the 'net). If anything, the station dropped a little over that period, which would have increased the gauge readings. With this reconstruction, and the convincing data from Hawaii in my last post (amongst many other instances), I'm beginning to doubt the veracity of the claimed 3.2 mm/year "accelerated" rate post-1993 (satellite era for sea-level measurements).

Australia's CSIRO - The Truth, (but not) The Whole Truth, and nothing but Cherry Picking

Bruce Mapstone, chief, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Hobart, Tasmania (note Hobart, there's more) wrote to The Australian "Sea-level observations". February 9th, 2012

BOB Carter's references to sea level ("Scientific research drowning in a sea of alarmism", 7/2) require clarification.

Sea level observations come from measurement by satellites and, as Carter notes, a network of tide gauges around the Australian coastline operated by the Bureau of Meteorology and similar gauges internationally.

These observations show that rates of sea-level rise around Australia range from 2.6mm a year to 9.5mm a year since the early 1990s, compared with the global average rate over a similar period of about 3.2mm a year.

Variation in sea levels from region to region is to be expected, as Carter also notes, but continuing analysis indicates the dominant trend around Australia for the past 20 years is upward and above the global average.

The global average of observations is near the high end of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change model projections over the same period, indicating that the range of model projections encompass changes that have occurred, and indeed that the models may be underestimating observed changes.

Lets' jump right in and have a look at the Hobart tide gauge data - right on Bruce's doorstep at CSIRO Mansions on Castray Esplanade, overlooking the harbour, and probably within sight of the gauge -


View Larger Map

(click charts to enlarge)

Hobart, Tasmania - Sea Level 1987-2010

Oh dear, things are not looking too good for Bruce's "clarification", the rate from 1987 is -0.438 mm/year (0.67 from 1962). The odd 1987 start date is due to the fact that there are large gaps and anomalous readings prior to then. The gauge was displaced several times by ship's masters who couldn't park neatly, and had to be replaced (the gauge, not the masters, but who knows?).

He was referring to an opinion piece by Bob Carter two days previously, in which he attacked a "a science-fiction prediction of a 91cm rise in sea level in the district by 2100". Carter ridiculed Lake Macquarie City Council's new coastal planning regulations, which control new developments around the lake, mandating higher floor levels to "account for sea level rise and wave action". Yet the NSW Department of Planning has said there's "uncertainty surrounding the manner in which sea level will rise", which means whatever floor levels they enforce are likely to be either inadequate or excessive. The "91" figure (notice it's not a round 90 or "almost a metre") implies an estimate accuracy of +/- 1cm. The range is given as LOW: 18 cm. MEDIUM: 55 cm. HIGH: 91 cm. So the overall spread is 1:5, yet the figures are quoted to a single cm accuracy? Over a period of 90 years? That really is "science fiction". I could stick my neck out and say 50 +/-50 centimetres, which should cover most eventualities. Of course, I could be wrong. In fact I know I'll be wrong, which is why my neck will stay in.

The regulations are based on that 91cm maximum predicted rise by 2100, and Carter says

This prediction comes from the NSW government, which in turn sourced it from a UN political body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. As with its unnecessarily alarmist projections of global warming, the IPCC's estimate of future sea-level rise derives from speculative computer models.

He also lists what he terms "four facts"

First, that rates of sea-level change vary around the Australian coast. This means any new coastal planning regulations (if and where they are needed) should be based on the appropriate local sea-level measurements rather than a hypothetical global average.

Second, the longest east coast tide-gauge record, from Fort Denison (Sydney), records an average rate of rise over the past 100 years of about 1mm a year (10cm a century).

Third, that other tide gauges, scattered around Australia as part of the national tidal network, mostly record rates of long-term rise between about 0.5mm and 2.5mm a year with no change in behaviour in the late 20th century that might reflect a human (global warming) influence.

And, fourth, that the Sydney tide gauge, as well as other long tidal records from nearby (Fremantle, Auckland) and overseas, exhibits a slowing rate of sea-level rise over the past 40 years.

How do Carter's "facts" stack up? His first is common sense. A health service bases its policies on local , not world, nor even regional demographic statistics and forecasts. It's logical to expect local and state authorities to do the equivalent as regards local planning.

His second is indisputable (except by Bruce Mapstone and others, who just ignore it. "Post-normal" science doesn't need facts).

His third is correct if you accept his qualification of mostly, and I accept it, having analysed data from most of the 95 National Tidal Centre tide gauges (plus two privately owned) around Australia. How does it square with what Bruce Mapstone says? First note that Brucie (I feel I know him well already) doesn't actually refute what Carter wrote. In short, he can't - it's fact. Note also what Mapstone actually said - "from 2.6mm a year to 9.5mm a year since the early 1990s". "Early 1990s" is a bit vague, isn't it? Well no, it isn't, because the CSIRO have chosen to use a subset of 14 of those 97 gauges, installed and monitored by the ABSLMP project at the National Tidal Centre of the Bureau of Meteorology. In other words, they've chosen to use just one seventh of the data available to them. Cherry anyone?

The fourth is indeed fact. Data from most of the long-term records show a slowing rather than an acceleration, and most sites show a flat or declining trend since 1999. I've posted on the CSIRO's data selection bias and more recent, lower rates here.

Back to Bruce's last paragraph

The global average of observations is near the high end of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change model projections over the same period, indicating that the range of model projections encompass changes that have occurred, and indeed that the models may be underestimating observed changes.

Beat that for gobbledygook - if the model "projections" didn't "encompass changes that have occurred" then they can't be much use. If the models may be underestimating "observed changes" it doesn't automatically follow that they are also underestimating future "projections". I don't know, and he doesn't know what assumptions are made in those models.

Then there's a (partial but flawed) rebuttal of Mapstone's "non-rebuttal" the following day. "Levels all at sea" from one William Kininmonth:

THE clarification on Australian sea-level observations by Bruce Mapstone (Letters, 9/2) fails to reveal all of the uncertainties relating to the data.

Australian tide gauges accurately measure the relative movements of sea level with respect to the gauges. However, the vertical movement of individual tide gauges is uncertain.

The vertical movement isn't uncertain, at least not for some of the gauges. A global network of Continuous Global Positioning System (CGPS) stations is already established, designed to monitor land movement and/or gauge movement. There are 12 around Australia, near the ABSLMP stations. Here's the current plot for Sydney - appropriately the station's in Macquarie Park!

Latest ULR GPS position time series for Sydney

A note for those who've heard of the CGPS stations used by the NTC - the stations are remote from the gauges (up to several km inland), they monitor land movement, and do not "automatically adjust" the vertical position of the gauge. That's both impractical (the gauges are of necessity firmly fixed to their supports), and undesirable. It's not only the sea that rises and falls with the pull of the sun and moon, but the Earth's crust too (crustal tide), up to about 10cm range, depending on latitude, greatest near the point nearest to the sun and/or moon. If the gauge position was kept constant relative to the GPS satellites, the gauge would be dropping relative to the land as the tide and land rose, and would register a higher reading than it should, and a lower reading as tide and land fell.

And for the last word, from a body which even Bruce might take note of, The Tasmanian Planning Commission, in its sober but a trifle "consensus science" "State of the Environment (SoE) Tasmania 2009" report is precise and factual (my bold):

Sea-level rise for Australia is only slightly less than the global average (NTC 2007; Church and White 2006) and coastal observations confirm that sea-levels have been rising since at least 1920 by approximately 1.2 mm/yr (Church et al. 2006; IPCC 2001; see also Pittock and Wratt 2001; Lambeck 2002). A common feature in many model projections is a higher than the global average sea-level rise off the southeast coast of Australia and in a band stretching across the Indian and southern Pacific oceans at about 30°–45°S (CSIRO 2009). Sea-level rise is greatest (about 3 mm/yr) in the eastern equatorial Pacific and western equatorial Indian Ocean. Observed rates of rise are smallest (about 1 mm/yr) in the western equatorial Pacific and eastern Indian Ocean, particularly the northwest coast of Australia. Two of the longest continuous Australian tide gauge records are from Fremantle in Western Australia (92 years) and Fort Denison in New South Wales (83 years) indicate that the observed rate of sea-level rise relative to the land has been 1.38 mm/yr and 0.86 mm/yr respectively (DPIWE 2004). Regional variations in the rate of sea-level rise are weaker for much of the rest of the global oceans (AGO 2003). 

They haven't got the last word, though, I have. If the CSIRO chooses to use the state-of-the-art NTC SEAFRAME gauge data for (some of) Australia, why didn't they use data from similar NTC gauges across the Pacific islands for their "Climate Change in the Pacific" reports instead of spatially coarse satellite data? Why did they choose to use (coarse) gridded HADSST2 sea surface temperature data rather than localised in-situ measurements recorded by those same gauges? You answer the question, I already know the answer.

The Footprint of El Niño - South Pacific Sea level

I've mentioned the intermittent effect of El Niño on South Pacific sea level in several posts. How and why does this part of the ENSO cycle affect sea level?

The primary cause of anomalous ocean conditions is the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) in the equatorial Pacific Ocean. Westward winds normally maintain slightly higher water levels in the western Pacific relative to the eastern Pacific. Every three to five years, in a non-periodic pattern, the winds weaken and water levels in the western Pacific drop below normal. The southern equatorial current is weakened and water temperatures in the eastern Pacific rise. This condition is known as El Niño. The opposite condition, known as La Niña, occurs when westward equatorial winds are unusually strong and water levels in the western Pacific become anomalously high. The south equatorial current strengthens, accompanied by below normal water temperatures in the eastern Pacific.

Boiled down, in terms of the effect on sea level, is that levels in the western and south-western Pacific tend to drop, often significantly, during El Niño years, while those in the east tend to rise.

The island of Majuro, in the Marshall Islands reflects this trend particularly well. The opposite La Niña effect, though present, is not so well illustrated. Using data from an earlier gauge maintained by the University of Hawaii, and the later SEAFRAME gauge installed in 1993 by the National Tidal Centre based in Adelaide, Australia, I've been able to reconstruct a history of sea level at Majuro Atoll from 1978 to 2011.

For charts for Majuro and other Pacific Islands, including Tuvalu and Kiribati, see my reference page "South Pacific Sea Level 2011".

Here's a table of El Niño years. Those from 1969 to 2010 are clearly represented on the Majuro chart. The 1982-3 and 1997-8 El Niños were particularly strong events, and I've highlighted them in red

El Niño Years 1902-1903 1905-1906 1911-1912 1914-1915 1918-1919 1923-1924 1925-1926 1930-1931 1932-1933 1939-1940 1941-1942 1951-1952 1953-1954 1957-1958 1965-1966 1969-1970 1972-1973 1976-1977 1982-1983 1986-1987 1991-1992 1994-1995 1997-1998 2002-2003 2006-2007 2009-2010

On the other (eastern) side of the Pacific, continuous long-term records are difficult to find, but that for Monterey, California illustrates the opposite effects quite well, although earlier El Niño years aren't quite so clearly defined.

Not much sign of the 1972-1973 and 1976-1977 El Niños, but the later events are all represented, though to varying degrees. Most of the west and south-west Pacific islands show the "El Niño" effect to differing degrees, but Tuvalu has become the "poster child" of the Global Warming scenario, so it's worthwhile reproducing my reconstruction for that island, covering 1977-2011.

The linear trend shows a value of 0.28 mm/month, which translates to 3.36 mm/year. However, the effect of the El Niños is to pull the trend line down progressively from right to left; it's always below the 13-month running mean (in red), more so on the left. A simple way to eliminate the negative effect of the El Niño "spikes" on the trend is to remove them from the data. However, this is not as easy as it sounds; there's a clear (approximately) annual cycle, illustrated by the sharp upward spikes.  These "king tides" usually occur in late February or early March, occasionally as late as April, and their timing is due to the "lining up" of the tidal effects of both moon and sun. The all-time peak was in February 2006 (very clear on the graph), and despite dire predictions, hasn't yet been surpassed.

An Australian newspaper dispatched a team to Tuvalu in February 2011 to document what was expected to an all-time record "king tide". However, nature being as quirky as ever, organised things so that they'd already "missed the boat" (a metaphor becomes a bad pun!) as the highest tide had already occurred the previous month; indeed the February peak was lower than both January and March peaks. That and the fact that the January peak was no record, produced a "non-event" and no follow-up report was published.

However, I digress - removing the El Niño "spikes" must be done with care if an opposite upward bias is to be avoided. One way round this is to use annual data so the monthly cycle is not a problem, though it effectively removes more data. I'll be following up with a detailed analysis of late-20th century sea level rise at Tuvalu.

Data Sources


Marshall Islands (Majuro): Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level and South Pacific Sea Level and Climate Monitoring Project

Monterey: Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level

Tuvalu (Funafuti): Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level and South Pacific Sea Level and Climate Monitoring Project

South Pacific Sea Level to September 2011

Note: A permanent and (to be) regularly updated page has been created (see top of sidebar) located here. I've updated this page with data to December 2011.

The island sea level charts are drawn from monthly data from the South Pacific Sea Level and Climate Monitoring Project. I've included a chart for a second Fiji station, and also one at the end for a New Zealand station, Jackson Bay (South Island). Neither is part of the project, but data is provided on the website.

The high resolution SEAFRAME (Sea Level Fine Resolution Acoustic Measuring Equipment) monitoring stations comprise modern integrated housings which measure and record sea level, barometric pressure, water temperature and air temperature. Most of the stations were installed in 1992 and 1993, though a few were later. It's important to note that the effect of local land movement is eliminated from sea level data:

The Continuous Global Positioning System (CGPS) network monitors vertical movement in the earth's crust, such as subsidence or tectonic shifts, at the SEAFRAME tide gauges and adjacent land. Sea level data can then be adjusted to compensate for the earth's movement to within a millimeter, enabling the absolute sea level to be determined. 

I have voiced criticism of Australia's Bureau of Meteorology on various topics in the past, but as far as the presentation of sea level data is concerned, I rate their National Tidal Centre as the best. The page I linked to above has a table of the 12 stations in the project (and the two others I mentioned) which links to PDF plots and data tables for sea level, barometric pressure, water temperature and air temperature. The data tables in turn link to online graphical plots and text files for easy import to spreadsheets. A map links directly to the data tables. I liked that Idea so much I've pinched it for use here.

What should be evident from the plots is that any generalisation of the situation over this wide area is invalid. Apart from an almost universal downward spike during the 1997/98 ENSO event, the history and trends differ widely. It should also be clear that claims of "25 mm/year" or "no rise" since the early 1990s are also invalid.

Most of the charts are dominated by a downward "spike" in 1997/98. The level drop was due to unusually high barometric pressure during the 1997/98 ENSO ("El Niño/La Niña-Southern Oscillation") event. The correlation is well illustrated for the Marshall Islands (Majuro Atoll), so I've placed this first. Kiribati and Tuvalu have been given much attention in the news media and on the 'net recently, so they're listed next.

Readers are welcome to reproduce any of the plots - all I ask is that attribution be given, preferably with a link to this post. I haven't used thumbnails - right-click on the image and select "save image as" or whatever your browser prompts.

Level data has been converted from metres to millimetres to overcome loss of precision in Excel's trend data. Gaps in the plots indicate gaps in the original data. Note that the trend slope is monthly - multiply by 12 to get the annual value (e.g. y = 0.2269x gives 2.7228 mm/year).

Select a location from the map to view a graph of the monthly sea level statistics for that location. Click on the bottom of the blue area for the NZ station, Click on your browser's back button to return to the map.

Source: Bureau of Meteorology     

Marshall Islands

Island: Majura   Location: Uliga

Note the 1997/98 ENSO "spike" and the correspondence with the abnormally high atmospheric pressure from late 1997 to late 1998 shown in the barometric pressure plot below:

Kiribati

Island: Tarawa   Location: Betio

The trend line is pulled down by the ENSO dip from the end of 1997 to end 1998. To give an better view of the trend from 1992 to present, I replotted the chart with that data excluded:

The resulting trend is effectively zero.
A downward trend is evident from end 2001 to present:

Tuvalu

Atoll:Funafuti   Island: Fongafale

As with Kiribati, the deep ENSO dip in 1997/98 pulls the trend line down on the left; it's below the 1994/1997 average. A zero trend is evident from 1999 to present:

Papua New Guinea

Island: Manus   Location: Lombrum

Here's a clearer view of the 1999-2011 trend of 3.4 mm/year, slightly above the global average:

Solomon Islands

Island: Guadalcanal   Location: Honiara

Again the trend is pulled down on the left; the average level 1999 to present is around 750 mm, and the trend 2.1 mm/year.

Vanuatu

Island: Efate   Location: Port Vila

The big 1997/98 downward spike evident in most of the other plots is absent; instead there's a relatively steady upward trend.

Fiji

Island: Viti Levu   Location: Lautoka

Island: Viti Levu   Location: Suva

Tonga

Island: Tongatapu   Location: Nuku'alofa

Although there's a steep trend from 1993, current levels are not dissimilar to those between 2000 and 2003.

Cook Islands

Island: Rarotonga   Location: Avatiu

Levels seem to have stabilised from 2006.

Samoa

Island: Upolu   Location: Apia

The familiar ENSO dip pulls the trend down at the LHS, but there is a sharp upward "spike" from 2010.

Nauru

Island: Nauru   Location: Aiwo

Overall trend is effectively flat - levels at present similar to those in 1993. However, the trend from 2002 is downward.

Federated States of Micronesia

Island: Pohnpei   Location: Dekehtik

An overall upward trend, though little change from 2007 to present.

New Zealand

Island: South Island   Location: Jackson Bay

There seems to be little overall change from mid-1998 (after the ENSO dip) to present. A plot from 1999 confirms that: