Sea level rising fast along American East Coast – or not
A new study published in Nature Climate Change claims there is a sea level rise “hotspot” along the East Coast of the United States. The gullible press picked up on the story. The lead sentence from the Arizona Daily Star reads: “From Cape Hatteras, N.C., to just north of Boston, sea levels are rising much faster than they are around the globe, putting one of the world’s most costly coasts in danger of flooding, government researchers report.”
The paper is Asbury H. Sallenger Jr, Kara S. Doran, & Peter A. Howd, 2012, Hotspot of accelerated sea-level rise on the Atlantic coast of North America, Nature Climate Change (see full paper here).
Sallenger et al. claim that during the periods 1950–1979 and 1980–2009 the rate of sea level rise in this northeast hotspot was ~ 3–4 times higher than the global average. Their contention is based on computer modeling, statistical analysis, and extrapolation of data. “We test the hypothesis that a statistically significant observed northeast hotspot of accelerated sea level rise exists by determining its position and dimensions and comparing them with model projections. (See my post Statistical Significance in Science – how to game the system)
The computer games of Sallenger et al. are countered by real data. Actual readings from tidal gauges show a record of deceleration of sea level rise (dated from the early 20th Century to present) in the following cities: Annapolis, Baltimore, Bar Harbor, Boston, Charleston, Eastport, Newport, and Portland, all in or near the alleged hotspot. Some other stations in the area, such as Atlantic City, Montauk, and New London, show a small increase in the rate of sea level rise.
(Reference: Houston, Jr. And Dean, R.G., 2011, Sea-level acceleration based on U.S. tide gauges and extensions of previous global-gauge analyses. Journal of Coastal Research, 27(3), 409–417.)
Sallenger et al. are hard-pressed to come up with an explanation for the “hotspot.” They invoke this: “Climate warming does not force sea-level rise (SLR) at the same rate everywhere. Rather, there are spatial variations of SLR superimposed on a global average rise. These variations are forced by dynamic processes, arising from circulation and variations in temperature and/or salinity, and by static equilibrium processes, arising from mass redistributions changing gravity and the Earth’s rotation and shape.”
They miss a simple explanation: sediment compaction and subsidence from varying rates of groundwater withdrawal. Relative sea level depends in part on the geology of the area. That is superimposed on a regional, long-term sinking of the East Coast caused by isostatic rebound from the last glacial epoch, i.e., as the central part of North America rebounds from the weigh of the now melted continental ice sheet, it tilts the coastal area into the ocean producing an apparent sea level rise.
For a more detailed explanation of glacial isostacy see here.
For a broader perspective of sea level rise since the last glacial epoch see my post: Sea Level Rising?
See also:
University of Arizona dances with sea level
Sea Level Rise in the South Pacific: None
Sea Level Rise Declining says EU
Obama parts the waters, sea level drops
Size matters in sea level studies

Add comment
Before posting a comment, please read the Terms of Service (click here). Long links are shortened but still work.
PLEASE report all spam/inappropriate comments using the 'Report to administrator' link. If you find your post gone, it's because you violated the TOS.

Comments
Geez . . . I almost broke my keyboard writing this tripe. But it sounds good, don't it?
With all the hours she has spent under my desk while I've been working on code she's bound to be more knowledgeable about programming than what we've seen from some of the climate modelers.
It's easy! Just forget all ethical standards, and start hating humans now. Then you can too can attain a PhD, and maybe a Nobel Prize to boot!
Or did you leave one off?
Even the dimmest environmentalist is aware of that. Since you must be a newby here, I'll cut you a break and not barrage you with a tirade about your inability to recognize that I'm being hopelessly facetious.
Similarly as we increase in depth in the oceans, though the pressure increases, temperatures have been observed to drop. In part we can speculate that is because their isn't any sunlight getting down there to warm things and in part because cooler water tends to sink below warmer water.
So it is the sun, the pressure, the moisture content, the wind patterns, etc. etc.
In other words a lot of things go into making the temperatures what they are, changing them, moving pressure fronts around, and in general creating "climate." To try and simplify it down to a single trace gas as the "driving force" is to admit one really doesn't understand science let alone the natural forces involved in making our planet habitable.
Could not have said it better myself.
I appreciate the offer on the paw review, but I try and avoid dog-matic conclusions.
I'll stick with my beer review... the
barlaboratory is coming along nicely.Excellent summary that so very well describes the flimsy foundation upon which the Global Warming Collective has chosen to build its castle.