We can see how hard it is to construct long term records on sea level rise, because
tide gage records were seldom continuous.
I very much like that the seal level rise estimated in this study very closely matches the SF
tide gage rate of 1.92 mm / yr since 1897.
certainly doesn't and if you plot out
the tide gage data from PSMSL you will find that the timeline over the last 120 is nearly as straight.
If I understand correctly, both methods try to calibrate
their tide gage data by comparing with the satellite data.
Tide gages in cities located at the edges of where glaciers were located would appear to show that sea levels were rising, while other cities located where the glaciers were centered show that sea levels are falling.
In a 2009 study, the authors used GPS measurement to correct for local vertical movement of the Earth at key
tide gages, finding a «global rate of geocentric sea level rise of 1.61 ± 0.19 mm / yr over the past century».
In a 2009 study, the authors used GPS measurement to correct for local vertical movement of the Earth at key
tide gages, finding a «global rate of geocentric sea level rise of 1.61 ± 0.19 mm / yr over the past century» Their study shows no acceleration and no changes in rate during warm or cold periods of the last 110 years.
Interestingly, the chart becomes better correlated to temperatures once satellite measurements are used rather than
tide gages.
Not exact matches
These sources of information include moored buoys, drifting buoys,
tide -
gage stations, satellite data relay, and volunteer observing ships.
Immediately, the issue appears of how representative are the samples of 24 localities and 66
tide -
gage records?
There are hundreds
tide -
gage records giving dramatically different results.