Sea level may drop in 2010

Guest post by John Kehr

Based on the most current data it appears that 2010 is going to show the largest drop in global sea level ever recorded in the modern era.  Since many followers of global warming believe that the rate of sea level rise is increasing, a significant drop in the global sea level highlights serious flaws in the IPCC projections.  The oceans are truly the best indicator of climate.  The oceans drive the world’s weather patterns.  A drop in the ocean levels in a year that is being cited as proof that the global warming has arrived shows that there is still much to learned.  If the ocean levels dropped in 2010, then there is something very wrong with the IPCC projections.

The best source of sea level data is The University of Colorado.  Only government bureaucracy could put the sea level data in one of the places farthest from the ocean, but that is where it is.  I use both data sets that includes the seasonal signal.  So with and without the inverted barometer applied.  This is the source of the data that is used to show that the oceans are rising.  Of course the rate of rise is greatly exaggerated and if the rate from 1993-2010 is used there will be a 1m rise in the year 2361.

Of course the rate is not constant.  The rate of rise over the past 5 years has been half the overall rate.  At the rate of the past 5 years it will be the year 2774 before the oceans rise a single meter.  Of course a decrease in the rate is technically an negative acceleration in the rate of rise, so technically the rate of rise is accelerating, but in a negative direction.  That statement is misleading though as most people consider acceleration to be a positive effect.

The Inconvenient SkeptcSea Level Change

Even more interesting is the fact that from 1992-2005 there was an increase each year.  2006 was the first year to show a drop in the global sea level.  2010 will be the 2nd year to show a decrease in sea level.  That is correct, 2 of the past 5 years are going to show a decrease in sea level.  2010 could likely show a significant drop global sea level.  By significant I mean it is possible that it will likely drop between 2-3 mm from 2009.  Since the data has not been updated since August it is difficult to guess more precisely, but the data ends at the time of year that the seasonal drop begins to show up.  If the drop does show up as expected it is possible that 2010 will show the largest drop in sea level ever recorded.

The Inconvenient Skeptic2010 could show a significant drop in sea level from 2009.

Of course what will happen won’t be known until the data for the past 5 months is made available.  I have been patiently waiting for the data to be updated for several months now, but I got tired of waiting and decided to put the information I have out there.

One fact is certain.  A drop in sea level for 2 of the past 5 years is a strong indicator that a changing sea level is not a great concern.  In order for the IPCC prediction to be correct of a 1m increase in sea level by 2100, the rate must be almost 11 mm/yr every year for the next 89 years.  Since the rate is dropping, it makes the prediction increasingly unlikely.  Not even once in the past 20 years has that rate ever been achieved.  The average rate of 2.7 mm/yr is only 25% of the rate needed for the IPCC prediction to be correct.

This is yet another serious blow the accuracy of the official IPCC predictions for the coming century.  The fact that CO2 levels have been higher in the last 5 years that have the lowest rate of rise than the years with lower CO2 levels is a strong indicator that the claims of CO2 are grossly exaggerated.

=========================================================

John Kehr runs the website The Inconvenient Skeptic – I recommend a visit. – Anthony

About these ads

202 thoughts on “Sea level may drop in 2010

  1. This is just another sign of global warming: the oceans are boiling and intensified evaporation has caused temporary stop in sea level rise, which is actually not stop because 30-year trend is still steepest evah and the sea level rise is still churning in the background, and it will come back with tremendous force, haunting us in a year 3000, no kidding I read all that stuff somewhere.

    • I think the “deniers” have been siphoning up sea water and hiding it behind a paywall. We are a scurrilous lot indeed.

  2. “Since the data has not been updated since August it is difficult to guess more precisely, but the data ends at the time of year that the seasonal drop begins to show up. ”
    Perhaps they are reluctant to release the information to December 2010 because there is a further drop and that would spoil the fun for NASA/GISS trumpeting the warmest year on record. Can’t have the pals spoiling the fun with real information.

  3. The sea level rise is dropping because the sun’s output is dropping.

    Sun=major influence on climate. Will the IPCC get around to suggesting positive feedback from solar output, the way it does with greenhouse gases?

    The truth will out in the end.

  4. If the drop in 2010 SL is confirmed, then the explanations will be interesting. We are told that 2010 was the second warmest year ever and the last decade was the warmest ever. I thought that meant that the sea would expand, causing a rise in sea level. And what happened to all the melt water from the ice fields?
    Maybe we will be told that not only does global warming cause extremely cold weather but it can also cause the sea levels to fall. Maybe the plug hole at the bottom of the ocean has sprung a leak.

  5. Funny how the record temp data is precast before the end of the year and then available days after the end of the year, but sea level data showing sea levels descreasing is 5 months late and counting.

  6. Nice article.

    As I never cease to keep reminding people, the IPCC Chapter 5 on sea levels is riddled with problems from start to finish one of which is the lack of historic context. Sea levels have been rising and falling around a central point for the last 2000 years.

    There is no evidence to show it was higher today than in the 18th century from which it declined then rose.

    Similarly we know levels to have been higher than today in the Roman Optimum and MWP.

    tonyb

  7. Nice post! Has there been any discovery or speculation as to why there is a cyclical variation in the seal level during the course of the year? Seems to be a little strange unless it could be that more water is downunder and so it rises during the warm periods south of the equator but not as much rise during the summer north of the equator. Anyway it is an interesting variation during the year.

  8. I simply do not believe a satelite can measure sea levels with levels of accuracy in milimeters, yes, they are good, but not THAT good IMO. What I do know, from real life, ground based obsevations in coastal places like Portsmouth, Gosport, Emsworth and Exeter in the UK, sea leave rises have not been significant in several hundreds of years.

  9. According to the Argo date set ocean surface temperatures are falling. It follows that there will be a thermal shrinking of this water thus lowering sea levels.

  10. This is yet another serious blow the accuracy of the official IPCC predictions for the coming century

    Does anyone honestly think it’ll make the slightest difference? Someone will come up with an explanation entirely consistent with AGW!

  11. If was bold enough to bet “real money” on climate predictions, I’d bet that the average rate of sea level rise over the next 20 years will be less than 1mm/yr.

    Nice post, John.

  12. The apologists will say that the reason sea levels are not rising and may even reduce is because all the excess water from glacier melt and thermal expansion is now sitting in Wivenhoe Dam in Queensland, Australia.

    Three cheers to Anna Bligh, the State Premier for her forward planning.

  13. Excellent post, which clearly tells me it will be safe to go to the beach for a holiday for while yet!

  14. Yes, but, it’s what the media decides to repeat that is important. Today, everything is “reported” it’s about what is repeated – the “legs” that pundits talk about with news stories. Today’s climate repeating by media is still mostly all what the warmist want it to be with very minor exceptions. There’s simply too much “invested” by the usual cast in the media. The delay is deciding if the numbers need to be fudged or how best to present them. The announcement will be typical to what we’re used to seeing. This is not a story like Piltdown Man – this is literally a gold mine for politicians, various agenda driven groups and business that reap huge profits from the Greenie econ myth. Which brings me to the myth of the GE 12 squiggly year light bulb that I just replaced after less that a year – seems it burned out. I’m checking now to see if I can send it to my congressman asking for a tax break but I still have a few hundred regs to read about sending hazardous materials through the mails, much less to anyone in DC.

  15. Now you have revealed you hand, can we not be certain that the data, when eventually released, will have been ‘adjusted’ sufficiently far to prove that we are all gong to be drownded three weeks ago last Tuesday as the models tell us?

    This is Climatology after all.

  16. John how long before these results are known and what is the latest measurement as shown by satellite? For example do satellite measurements show similar results?

  17. Buzzed it and will truly enjoy watching how the agwbelievers will manage to twist dropping to rising, like cold is the new warm!
    umm will Tuvalu and other islands need to return funds, or just stop hitting other nations for guilt trips over their supposed sinking?
    hell of long list of things that haven’t/aren’t happening isn’t there?
    oceans cooling, less cyclones, extimct animals found alive, arctic still rather icy, antarctica doing just fine, siberias methane being covered again with snow and ice.
    Josh may have to take a saw to his AGW table:-) another legs just got very wobbly!

  18. That excess water is stored somewhere and it’s a travesty that we can’t account for it.

  19. I’ve calculated the rate of rise since 2003, and made it available here.

    Please notice that it has been going down (be careful: the rate is going down; not sea-level) almost continuously since the beginning of 2006, only interrupted in the fall2009-spring2010, probably due to “El Nino”.

    Ecotretas

  20. The linear regression shown at the beginning of this post is rather clear. There is a strong up trend, but with too much short term variability to give any meaning to one year’s data. Seems reasonable that variability will continue but that the long term trend will also continue.

  21. Randall Harris 2:35am:
    “….why there is a cyclical variation in the seal level during the course of the year?”

    It’s because in the breeding season there are lots of baby seals, so the seal level goes up, then the polar bears come along and eat them and the seal level goes down again. Happens every year. :)

  22. Cedar hill, those squiggly lightbulbs diminish in output over time. I also replaced mine after one year, and stocked up on incandescence before they become illegal (seriously)

    Expect to hear the word LAG when questioned by the media. The storyline will be “their is a lag between ocean response and temperature increase”

    In reality, one can say there is a lag between fact and fiction.

  23. Geoff Sherrington says:
    January 17, 2011 at 3:27 am

    That excess water is stored somewhere and it’s a travesty that we can’t account for it.

    Some of that water is stored in the form of white soot in my backyard. Obviously there is more of it than there was last year.

  24. This article is trying to produce a very definite conclusion from the visual inspection of a small short term change at the end of a slow long term trend. That can’t be done.

    It shows a lack of skill plus an excess of hope.

    It looks to me like a repeat of the Steve Goddard Incident where a tiny blip on the arctic ice curve became, in some people’s fevered imagination, an approaching ice age. We all know how embarassing that turned out to be.

  25. Tonyb says
    ———-

    There is no evidence to show it was higher today than in the 18th century from which it declined then rose.

    Similarly we know levels to have been higher than today in the Roman Optimum and MWP.
    ———-
    This looks like a self contradiction. Seems to be expressed badly.

  26. Patrick Davis says
    ——–
    I simply do not believe a satelite can measure sea levels with levels of accuracy in milimeters, yes, they are good, but not THAT good IMO.
    ——–
    They can measure the distance to the moon using the Apollo retro reflecting array with an accuracy of 1 foot.

    An individual with a hand held gadget can measure their own position to an accuracy of about 30 feet.

    Many other astonishing examples are available. Just because it is outside your personal experience does not mean it’s impossible.

  27. SL is the most important issue, because the decline can not be as easily hidden as “global average temperature”!

    It will bring the AGW down!

    SL dropping -> Check -> a lot to explain by warmists
    SL and CO2-concentration dropping -> Checkmate -> game over

  28. John Marshall says
    ——–
    According to the Argo date set ocean surface temperatures are falling. It follows that there will be a thermal shrinking of this water thus lowering sea levels.
    ——–
    I may follow that up, but does this relate to the change over from ship temperatures to more and more Argo bouys being deployed? Apparently the ship temps are slightly warm due to the sampling process. This in turn gave a spurious cooling trend.

  29. I’d say all the missing water is in Rio and Brisbane.
    The overall rise rate was 3.2 a few years ago, now it’s 3.1, and I’m betting 3.0. Nice to see it turn.

  30. “Only government bureaucracy could put the sea level data in one of the places farthest from the ocean”

    And award the space shuttle booster rockets contract to a manufacturer located in a land locked state causing the booster to be designed for train transportation instead of barge (hense the need for sections and O rings), causing the first space shuttle disaster.

  31. The quiet sun has resulted in more meridional/equatorward jets with more clouds overall and a higher global albedo.

    That is most likely due to a shift in the balance of chemical reactions inviolving ozone in the upper atmosphere which changes the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere and redistributes the pressure patterns at the surface.

    That results in less solar energy into the oceans and over time a decline in both ocean heat content and sea leels.

    The first consequence is and has been a tendency to skew the balance of ENSO towards more powerful and longer La Nina events as compared to El Nino events.

  32. So Obama was right. In his campaign speech Jun 2 2008 in all humility he ended with:
    The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; !!!->this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal;<–!!! this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth. This was the moment—this was the time—when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves and our highest ideals. Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.

  33. “Of course a decrease in the rate is technically an negative acceleration in the rate of rise, so technically the rate of rise is accelerating, but in a negative direction.”

    It is all due to global warming the sea is evaporating?

  34. “The fact that CO2 levels have been higher in the last 5 years that have the lowest rate of rise than the years with lower CO2 levels is a strong indicator that the claims of CO2 are grossly exaggerated.”

    All this in the “hottest decade on the record” in one of the “hottest years on the record”. ;O)

    If sea level rise doesn’t accelerate fast the IPCC will have some serious explaining to do. They have painted themselves in a corner.

  35. I would not be in the least bit surprised is someone writes a paper to show how global warming can disrupt the climate causing sea level to fall.

  36. @Lazy Teenager

    This article is trying to produce a very definite conclusion from the visual inspection of a small short term change at the end of a slow long term trend. That can’t be done.

    Would you lieke to draw our attention to the specific ‘very definite conclusion’ that you assert cannot be done.

    I didn’t see one, so find it difficult to understand your point.

  37. LazyTeenager

    It is what it is, and we can all see that. How is your nonsensical dismissal supposed to change that?

    MikeEE

  38. Patrick Davis, your question about accuracy of satellite altimetry is a good one. I have some experience in that area and can confirm it is very good since the process is very simple mathematics. You send out a radar pulse and with a very accurate clock you can time the return to yield the distance travelled round trip. Voila.

    Of course there are some fiddly bits since the satellite and the earth are both moving and you have to have good data on the ephemeris of the spacecraft but those problems are well solved. Years ago we reported we had enough accuracy to be able to detect shallow whales by their wake perturbing the surface. We could determine wave height within 5-8 mm in those days. Turned out that submarines are both bigger and faster than whales and have a really nifty three-dimensional wake. Needless to say, after that discovery much more money became available to improve the entire system. I have no idea what the detection level accuracy is these days but you can be sure it is significantly better than it was in 1998.

  39. Jimbo says:

    “I would not be in the least bit surprised is someone writes a paper to show how global warming can disrupt the climate causing sea level to fall.”

    It’s only a matter of time.

  40. LazyTeenager says: January 17, 2011 at 4:00 am

    Tonyb says
    ———-

    There is no evidence to show it was higher today than in the 18th century from which it declined then rose.

    Similarly we know levels to have been higher than today in the Roman Optimum and MWP.
    ———-
    This looks like a self contradiction. Seems to be expressed badly.

    Simply the historical truth, stop using your navel as a source.

  41. I’m just amazed that the global sea level can be measured accurately enough that a tenth of an inch difference from year-to-year can be detected.

  42. thingadonta:

    Sun=major influence on climate. Will the IPCC get around to suggesting positive feedback from solar output, the way it does with greenhouse gases?

    Your question shows that you are unfortunately badly misinformed and believe things that are absolutely not true. The positive feedbacks in the climate models apply to all forcings, including solar forcing. The only ones who I know of who are proposing that some mechanisms get selectively amplified are those who are arguing that this somehow happens for solar forcing.

  43. Patrick Davis says:
    January 17, 2011 at 2:53 am
    I simply do not believe a satelite can measure sea levels with levels of accuracy in milimeters, yes, they are good, but not THAT good IMO.

    I was thinking the same thing. And Lazyteenager, a foot is hardly comparable to a millimeter. We’re just supposed to take their word for it that the satellites are accurate despite observations on the ground (at places like decades-old docks, sea walls etc.) showing that sea level has not risen much/at all?

  44. Shhhhhhhhh.
    Telegraphing to the data handlers that you expect a drop gives them the clear signal to go in and alter the data. They probably want to avoid the kinds of heat and pressure that Washington could apply to their program if they do not make sea level change in the desired political direction.
    Shhhhhhhhh!

  45. LazyTeenager says:
    January 17, 2011 at 3:54 am
    This article is trying to produce a very definite conclusion from the visual inspection of a small short term change at the end of a slow long term trend. That can’t be done.

    It shows a lack of skill plus an excess of hope.

    It looks to me like a repeat of the Steve Goddard Incident where a tiny blip on the arctic ice curve became, in some people’s fevered imagination, an approaching ice age. We all know how embarassing that turned out to be.

    Well then, let’s just expand the data window a bit.

    Over the 20th century, sea level alternated between 26-yr (+/-6) periods of 2-3mm/yr rises and hiatuses (<1mm/yr)…

    Jerejeva et al., 2008: 20th Century

    From 1929-1961, sea level rose at an average rate of 3.17mm/yr.

    During the 1961-1979 hiatus, sea level rose at an average rate of 0.01mm/yr… In layman’s terms: Sea level did not rise during the 1960’s and 1970’s.

    The satellite data begin in 1993. From 1993-2002, sea level rose at a rate of 3.45mm/yr (almost identical to the 1929-1961 rise). From 2002 through 2009, sea level has risen at 2.35mm/yr…

    CU 1993-2009.

    In layman’s terms: The rate of sea level rise is decelerating. As John points out in his post, since 2009, the rate of sea level rise has nearly dropped to 0mm/yr.

    Since we have a century-long track record of alternating ~26-yr periods of ~3mm/yr rises and hiatuses… And the most recent rise began in 1979, it should have ended in about 2005 (+/-6-yr). The data seem to indicate that it ended somewhere between 2002 and 2010. Which is exactly in the range of natural variability established over the 20th century.

    To further elaborate on one of John’s other salient points: Se level would have to rise ant an average rate of 11mm/yr over the next 90 years in order to rise 1m by 2010. According to the Jerejeva reconstruction, the top ten decades of sea level rise since 1700 are (mm/yr):

    1804-1813 12.75
    1803-1812 10.67
    1728-1737 10.30
    1789-1798 8.38
    1842-1851 7.87
    1858-1867 7.82
    1788-1797 7.72
    1861-1870 7.66
    1808-1817 7.58
    1785-1794 7.18

    Sea level has not risen at a rate of more than 10mm/yr over any single decade since the early 19th century.

    Since 1950, sea level has not risen by 5mm/yr any single decade:

    1989-1998 4.66
    1990-1999 3.95
    1991-2000 3.86
    1956-1965 3.79
    1986-1995 3.78
    1974-1983 3.71
    1952-1961 3.65
    1993-2002 3.63
    1988-1997 3.44
    1975-1984 3.30

    The claim that sea level is likely to rise 1m by 2100 is idiotically preposterous. The predictions of 2m of sea level rise by 2100 are moronic.

  46. Recently, the Univ. of Utrecht and others have estimated that the volume of world net groundwater extraction has been growing steadily since 1960, if not before. These researchers estimate that this groundwater extraction has ended up in the oceans, one way or another, and is contributing 0.8 mm/year of the 3.1 mm/year increase in sea level the world is currently experiencing, or about a quarter of the recent rise. They also estimated (as many others have) that half of the sea level rise was due to ocean heating. And if that ocean heating slows down, any rate of sea level rise resulting from CO2 drops even further.

    One last thing. A few months ago people analyzed GRACE satellite data to determine how much ice was being lost from the West Antarctic Ice Peninsula and Greenland. They thought that since the top of the ice didn’t increase in elevation and the bedrock was rising very fast, any difference in between the top of the ice and the top of bedrock was due to melting. Turns out that GRACE found out through field checks there was less isostatic rebound in those locations than expected. So the increase of mass “lost” from ice melting was, in fact, from the the bedrock not moving up as fast as originally thought and ice loss was actually only one half of their originally estimated rate. Oops! So much for global catastrophic warming. To their credit, they published their error and will move on in their research. Kudos to them.

  47. LazyTeenager said to me;
    January 17, 2011 at 4:00 am
    Tonyb says
    ———-
    There is no evidence to show it was higher today than in the 18th century from which it declined then rose.

    Similarly we know levels to have been higher than today in the Roman Optimum and MWP.
    ———-
    This looks like a self contradiction. Seems to be expressed badly.

    ***

    Sorry Lazy Teenager, I make the mistake of assuming that most peoples’ first language here is English. I’ll try again.

    Sea levels oscillate round a mean average and have been higher in the past, for instance during the Roman Optimum and the MWP. Levels subsequently declined through the LIA, but have risen and fallen several times since then. It is currently gently rising again.

    This graph might help you-please note the cut off date so add an inch to the values shown.

    http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1240

    “Figure 1. Global sea level from 200 A.D. to 2000, as reconstructed from proxy records of sea level by Moberg et al. 2005. The thick black line is reconstructed sea level using tide gauges (Jevrejeva, 2006). The lightest gray shading shows the 5 – 95% uncertainty in the estimates, and the medium gray shading denotes the one standard deviation error estimate. The highest global sea level of the past 110,000 years likely occurred during the Medieval Warm Period of 1100 – 1200 A.D., when warm conditions similar to today’s climate caused the sea level to rise 5 – 8″ (12 – 21 cm) higher than present. Image credit: Grinsted, A., J.C. Moore, and S. Jevrejeva, 2009, “Reconstructing sea level from paleo and projected temperatures 200 to 2100 AD”, Climate Dynamics, DOI 10.1007/s00382-008-0507-2, 06 January 2009″

    Tonyb

  48. “LazyTeenager says:
    January 17, 2011 at 4:08 am”

    Distances between the solid objects like the Earth and the Moon are, relatively, static, certainly easy to measure, but not to within +/- a few milimeters, so not sure what your point is here. As with GPS, 30 feet, now tell me how is this relevant to the “few milimeters” we’re discussing here? With something so fluid, like seas and oceans, to measure, from space, to accuracies within milimeters is rediculous. The satelites themselves cannot remain in the same position in space to within milimeters, so again, what is your point?

    PS. I’ve worked in engieering to tollerances of +/- 2 microns. I sort of have an idea about measuring, measuring devices/techniques and measurements.

  49. One side of the argument takes some numbers then pulverises them into a figure of 3 mm rise in sea levels. Then the other side takes the same numbers and purees them into a drop of 3mm. The rising side claims they are correct, but refuses to discuss any possibility of error and attacks anyone that disagrees with them, then goes off to the corner to hold their breath until their face turns blue. The falling side also claims they are correct, but welcomes discussion and encourages others to demonstrate any errors in their conclusions, retiring to absorb with interest any comments that follow.

    Who in this scenario is more likely to be believed?

  50. This will actually be very easy to explain away. We had a strong Niño in 2010, so a lot of heat left the ocean and went into the atmosphere. At the same time we had an extreme solar minimum, so less heat than usual went into the ocean. Consequently ocean temperature went down (confirmed by Argo) . A cooler ocean takes up less volume, ergo sea-level goes down.
    Simple, and quite possibly true as well. The only drawback is that it makes “the warmest year evah” less scary and makes Trenberth’s missing heat go even more missing.

  51. Alexander K wrote “Excellent post, which clearly tells me it will be safe to go to the beach for a holiday for while yet!” But if the sea level would only rise faster, the beach could come to you!

  52. “John Stover says:
    January 17, 2011 at 6:06 am”

    Good post, and I am well aware of the methods used however, I am still unconvinced they are milimetre accurate in the context of these published sea level measurements, especially when these measurements are used as proof climate models and predictions of sea level rises are correct AND a direct result of human induced climate change, this is the context IMO. As I stated before, some very old sea ports and villages at “sea level” show none of this rise. You will also find no significant indication in Royal Naval archives of sea level rise in Royal Naval history, nowhere. And nowhere do I see sea level rises relative to changes in land levels, which fluctuate just as much as the tides.

  53. Because of the thermal inertia of the oceans and the lack of any UHI effect the best indicator of recent temperature trends is the Hadley – CRU Sea Surface Temperature data. The 5 year moving average shows the warming trend peaked in 2003 and a simple regression analysis shows a global cooling trend since then . The data shows warming from 1900- 1940 ,cooling from 1940 – about 1975 and warming from 1975 – 2003. CO2 levels rose monotonically during this entire period. It is clear that the IPCC models have been wrongly framed. Humidity, and natural CO2 levels are solar feedback effects not prime drivers. Anthropogenic CO2 has some effect but our knowledge of the natural drivers is still so poor that we cannot even estimate what the anthropogenic CO2 contribution is. This is obviously a short term on which to base predictions but in the context of declining solar activity – to the extent of a possible Dalton or Maunder minimum and the negative phase of the PDO and AO a global 20 – 30 year cooling spell is more likely than a warming trend.
    With regard to the sea level curve it would make sense to replot the regression analysis in two segments one up to 2003 and another from 2003 to the present.Just as the temperature curve rolled over we should see sea level flatten and then begin to decline as SSTs fall.

  54. Norman Page says:
    January 17, 2011 at 7:34 am

    […]

    With regard to the sea level curve it would make sense to replot the regression analysis in two segments one up to 2003 and another from 2003 to the present.Just as the temperature curve rolled over we should see sea level flatten and then begin to decline as SSTs fall.

    That is exactly what has happened.

    1993-2002: 3.45 mm/yr
    2002-2009: 2.35mm/yr

  55. Interesting. El Nino years the sea level goes up faster, La Nina years it doesn’t. A strong and long La Nina (and 2 of them in the past 5 years) would be the source of this. Check back in a decade and see if the decade average isn’t showing a trend upward. If the sea level isn’t higher a decade from now, time to rethink the models.

  56. Geoff Sherrington says:
    January 17, 2011 at 3:27 am
    That excess water is stored somewhere and it’s a travesty that we can’t account for it.

    Now THAT is funny!

  57. My guess:

    Easterlies bring about choppy tropical seas in the Pacific. Choppy seas kicks up water spray that turns into vapor into the atmosphere, thus cooling the surface. That wind also shoves that warmer, expanded, layer to the West as far as it will go till it piles onto land. The choppy seas also bring up colder, denser layers from under the now highly disturbed warmed skin. This is rather simple.

    The sea level rises and falls because of wind-driven changes in temperature in a very thin (relatively speaking) layer of water, not because the entire depth expands or contracts. The Sun is a constant. The gasses that keep us warm instead of much colder build and fall to their own tune. The highly variable and oscillating “wind” beats the tiny changes in Sun and atmospheric gasses. Rock, paper, scissors.

  58. Jerry from Boston says: January 17, 2011 at 6:41 am

    Recently, the Univ. of Utrecht and others have estimated that the volume of world net groundwater extraction has been growing steadily since 1960, if not before. These researchers estimate that this groundwater extraction has ended up in the oceans, one way or another, and is contributing 0.8 mm/year of the 3.1 mm/year increase in sea level the world is currently experiencing, or about a quarter of the recent rise.
    Thanks for that Jerry. A couple of years ago I posted my own guesstimate of that contribution to sea level, using the UNs numbers, I came up with about 2mm/year. Considering we have had 10k years with an average increase of 9+mm/year, the rise in sea level now is insignificant. This is especially true considering what it took to produce that 9+mm/year, that is a 45-50° cap of mile high ice (NH only) plus whatever was melting in the SH. None of that exists today, we are not glaciated, therefore the rise in sea level can not possibly approach the fantasy projections of the IPPC.

  59. El Nino effect. We saw something similar in 1998. El Nino is a release of heat from the ocean. Therefore we expect deep cooling in the ocean, which will reverse some thermal expansion. I doubt that sea surface temperatures, as indicated by ARGO and mentioned by some other posters, has much effect. It is the DEEP temperature change that makes the major difference here (though both, of course, will have some effect).

    This points to something I have often thought about: While we think of El Nino heating effects as the earth getting warmer, it is, in fact, an effect of cooling, or rather it is a surface warming face that accompanies a sub-surface cooling. If you see an increasing exodus of Iraqi Christians does that mean the population of Iraqi Christians is increasing or decreasing? Well, in this case it means decreasing. Similarly every outgassing of heat to the point where it can radiate from the upper atmosphere instead of being stored deep in the ocean corresponds to net cooling of the earth.

  60. LazyTeenager says:
    January 17, 2011 at 4:08 am
    Patrick Davis says
    ——–
    I simply do not believe a satelite can measure sea levels with levels of accuracy in milimeters, yes, they are good, but not THAT good IMO.
    ——–
    They can measure the distance to the moon using the Apollo retro reflecting array with an accuracy of 1 foot.

    —————–

    I share Patrick’s sceptism about the accuracy of measurements. I do not know precisely how sea levels are measured but if it a measurement of the distance between the satellite and the ocean, how do we know that orbital decay does not contribute some part of the 1 or 2 mm change in distance? Further unless you are measuring every mm2 surface of the earth you might be observing change in distribution not overall change in height.
    In any event an accuracy of a foot in the distance between the moon and earth suggests that satellite measurements may not have sufficient resolution. A foot is 304.8 mm and the moon is about 384,400 km from earth. I do not know the orbital distance between the relevant satellite and earth but if it is at a height of more than 1,300km from earth and if it has the same error as your example, it is doubtful that it would be able to measure to an accuracy of 1mm.
    Additionally, as noted in one of my comments on another thread, I am concerned as to what is being measured given plate techtonics. How do we know that presently the floor of the seabed is not being pushed up by an average 0f 1 to 2 mm each year as plates ride over/underneath one another?

    I also share the point made by tonyb at January 17, 2011 at 2:30 am . I have mase similar comments many times on other threads. Whilst written records and archaelogical records may not always be quantative, we can lear much from past history. This past history confirms that sea levels have risen and fallen considerably during recent history (the past 5,000 years) and how land was farmed that in many areas it was considerably hotter than today. This past historical evidence does not suggest that these hotter temperatures led to any mass extinctions and in fact man appears to have flourished in these warmer periods thereby suggesting that if the world were to now warm a few degrees, it would be entirely beneficial to us (and other species inhabiting this planet).

  61. R. Gates says:
    January 17, 2011 at 7:46 am
    If the sea level isn’t higher a decade from now, time to rethink the models.
    =====================================================
    Gates, they’ve been modeling now for over 40 years, and still adjusting it constantly, and still claiming accuracy.

    Do you see a total disconnect it that?

  62. “R. Gates says:
    January 17, 2011 at 7:46 am”

    In a decade, if the Atlantic isn’t 10″ wider, if the Pacific isn’t 10″ narrower, if Australia isn’t 10″ further north and if the moon isn’t 10″ further away from the Earth than today, yeah, time to re-check the models.

  63. Norman Page says:
    January 17, 2011 at 8:00 am
    Dave Middleton – just eyeballing the graph – the change in slope would be even more marked if you used 2003 as the inflection point. Regards N

    I agree… And I don’t recall Why I choose 2002.

  64. Rises and drops in sea level have been noted for thousands of years by anthroprogenic fishermen in S.America. Rises were known as El Señor’s and drops were know as La Señora’s. Before the advent of writing it is believed that these events were recorded somewhere inside every tree trunk on the continent. Today, many anthropologists believe that this is all an ancient fable handed down from generation to generation; the origins are disputed.

  65. IF they are going to tell us that “Global Warming” causes an increase of water in the air, thus more snowfall and extreme cold, they are going to say that the drop in the ocean’s level is more proof of Global Warming, because all the water is falling as snow on the land thus the ocean must drop…..

  66. Can anyone explain how sea level is measured, for example what is the prime method. I’ve never been able to successfully google quality information on this topic.

    I’m convinced that sea levels can be estimated but I remain totally unconvinced that they can be accurately measured.

  67. Tim Spence says:
    January 17, 2011 at 9:13 am
    Can anyone explain how sea level is measured, for example what is the prime method. I’ve never been able to successfully google quality information on this topic.

    I’m convinced that sea levels can be estimated but I remain totally unconvinced that they can be accurately measured.

    In the “old days” they used records from tide gauges. The problem with tide gauges is that they don’t tell you whether the sea is rising or the land is subsiding. Tide gauge records have to be isostatically adjusted to account for geological uplift and subsidence.

    Since the early 1990’s, satellite based altimetry (Jason, TOPEX) have been used to actually measure the elevation of the sea surface on a global scale.

  68. I can’t go along with the questioning of the accuracy of satellites. The biggest errors are caused by local effects such as tides, air pressure, ocean currents and winds that cause the sea level to change dramatically around the average in any one location. Moreover that average itself will not necessarily reflect the global average.

    I do not know how sea level is measured but I would be surprised if less than a million measurements were made each month. By taking such a huge sample across the globe most of the geographic and climatic uncertainties would be averaged out. In so doing random measurement error is also averaged out. A systematic error could remain but calibration is a simple process given the availability of fixed points on the land to use as a height reference.

    So sub millimetre accuracy for the measurement of the average is quite possible. However looking at the scatter of the plots it looks like the actual measured variable is not too stable and that is no surprise either. It is because of this instability and not the measurement that I think we need to look at the pattern and not the detail (as the post does). As such the pattern is entirely expected. The Argo measurements show little or no warming in the past decade and the sea level agrees with this. Personally I try not to fall into the same trap as the warmists and read too much into a small amount of data but the facts seem pretty clear.

  69. Tim Spence says:
    January 17, 2011 at 9:13 am

    Can anyone explain how sea level is measured, for example what is the prime method. I’ve never been able to successfully google quality information on this topic.

    I’m convinced that sea levels can be estimated but I remain totally unconvinced that they can be accurately measured.

    Here’s how they do it (you can try this too).

    Take a meter stick with millimeter graduations on one side, and wade out a predetermined distance into the ocean at your favorite beach shore location. Bend down and, where the water surface meets the meter stick, carefully observe the sea level at that point (you can round off the level indicated to the nearest millimeter). Record this value. That’s it. :^)

  70. ATTN: Cedar Hill and Robert of Ottawa

    RE: Short Service life of CFL

    The service life of a CFL or incan. light bulb (ILB) depends on the duty cycle, on the position of the device in and the type of the lighting fixture, and on air temperature and circulation.

    A CFL has service life rating (SLR) of 10,000 hours while a ILB has a SLR of 1000 hours. These values are only valid for constant service (i.e., constantly “On”) with the base down and the device not enclosed such as in milk glass diffusing globe, with an air temperature of about 70 deg F and adequate ventilation, and with a stable current and applied voltage.

    You can easily disassemble a CFL with a knife blade by inserting it in the gap between the top cap and base and twisting the blade to pry the plastic pieces apart. Lift up the coil base and cut off the leads from the circuit board at the entry points into the glass spiral bulb.

    You can remove the threaded metal base by prying the metal, a little bit at a time, away from the plastic base. Lift up the circuit board assembly and cut the leads off from the metal base at the circuit board. The lead for the hot contact of the metal base has a small fuse enclosed in heat shrink tubing. Note solder in and lead button contact of metal base.

    Note mass of solder on the solder side of the circuit board.

    Now check out the circuit board and its components. All other things being equal, the CFL is very enviromentally unfriendly due to the amount of metal and materials used such as copper, tin, lead, iron, and zinc and of doped silicon in the transistors and diodes. Note wire-wound resistors and transformer.

    The big question is: How long does a CFL last if most of the duty cycles are short? For example, how many times is a CFL in the main bathroom of house with four occupants turned on and off in 24 hours? Probably alot.

    How do voltages fluctuations and power surges affect the service life of CFL?

    If the CFL is installed upside down in a recessed lighting fixture or in a white glass diffuser hanging near the ceiling of hot kitchen, how does it last?

    Since most CFL’s are made in China, how much fossil fuel is use to make them? There is a lot more glass in a CFL than a ILB, and more raw heat is need to bend and form the thick glass spiral.

    Some final comments about ILB’s. There are two types of ILB’s for different service orientations. For horizontal service the filament is parallel to the long of the bulbs. these type of bulbs are used mostly in traffic signal lights, banker desk lamps, aquariums, etc.

    For vertical or upside service the filament is perpendicular to the long axis of the bulb. The filament is can be a short arc or have a circular form.

    Using a clear ILB inside a diffusing and opaque device affors more light as compared to a frosted ILB.

  71. Ecotretas says:
    January 17, 2011 at 3:29 am

    Interesting graph. Perhaps there was a ‘climate shift’ in 2006?

  72. I believe the most recent Church and White paper that is often quoted as the authority on SLR did not account for ground water pumping and in fact corrected the SLR data the opposite direction for ponding (dams). Therefore reducing SLR by .8 mm is a huge correction. I can image the the fighting between the glacier, ice shelf alarmists and the thermal expansionists over what is left. I still put the most credence on tidal gauges located near stable cratons away from river deltas like many places in Australia which tend to show about 1.2 mm per year over the last century.

  73. The ability to measure the sea level with accuracy like this is fairly new. I can’t find the details that I read through once, but the ability was an unexpected discovery that re-opened the study of the sea levels.

    The only way for the sea level to be static is for there to be no retention of rainfall. So perhaps 50 million years ago it was stable. As long as there is ice sheets or glaciers growing or shrinking on land, the sea level will always be changing.

    That it was trending up indicates there was warming, but the trend has changed and appears to be reversing. This would point towards a natural cycle. It would also indicate that beachfront property will always be risky business.

  74. “cal says:
    January 17, 2011 at 9:25 am”

    You have to understand how satellites remain in orbit, they vary ALOT. If we can get “brown outs” (I am suuming not “weather” related) with satellite TV, how come the same cannot be applied to “weather satellites”? They use the same technology after all!

  75. If sea-level is falling, I’d think the ocean-heat content would also have fallen — temp is proportional to density.

    Stay tuned for re-run of attempted manipulation of the OHC data from the ARGO network to “hide the decline”.

  76. I blame the hole BP made in the gulf of Mexico for the drop of the sea level. The drop is exponential, by the year 2100 sharp the oceans will disappear.

    Big oil is always guilty. Follow the money.

    P.S. Dear BP, I haven´t received last month´s paycheck :P

  77. There is a big uncertainty how much pumping of ground water and fossile water contributes to sea level rise. There are contributions to sea level rise when the ground water level is permanently lowered. Or when fossile water layers are opened. Numbers of estimates are: total pumped water is 1200 km3/year (would correspond to 3.5 mm rise/y). Out of that 300 km3/y are estimated as permanent effects (1mm/y). But nobody knows hard numbers. People in arid countries pump for growing food, who should blame them. Then there is evapotranspiration of the food plants and the rain water ends in the ocean.
    Can we wait hundred years, before hard data are taken?

  78. “The Warmists may take away our Life, our Liberty, our Persuit of Happiness, but they will never take away our Sense of Humor.”

    When the World starts weighing you down, you just gotta’ laugh.

  79. John Kehr – how about rerunning your graph as I suggested to Middleton above with two regression curves one up to and including 2003 and the other starting with 2003 and including the latest 2010 numbers. Thanks Norman

  80. John Stover says:
    January 17, 2011 at 6:06 am

    Typo in your post:

    Of course there are some fiddly bits since the satellite and the earth are both moving…

    ‘Of course there are some fudgy bits…’

    There, corrected it.

  81. Well, obviously if the ocean levels lower then it means global warming is worse than we thought and a bunch of water has evaporated away – probably into space of course since we won’t be able to detect it in the atmosphere since “our observing system is inadequate.”

    Oh god, if someone actually says that in print then I’ll probably die laughing.

  82. Re: Jerry from Boston says:
    January 17, 2011 at 6:41 am.

    Jerry, may you please provide the reference for that study done past year and published (or to be published)? Thanks.

  83. It’s the “saucer people”. They don’t have any oceans of their own, so they’re sending saucer-tankers down under cover of darkness to steal our oceans. The saucer-tankers bring in loads of snow to dump on us before picking up their sea-water cargo for the return trip. It been very cold in saucer-land and they’ve been covered up with the white stuff ever since they quit burning fossil fuels.

  84. Claude Harvey says:
    January 17, 2011 at 11:10 am
    It’s the “saucer people”. They don’t have any oceans of their own, so they’re sending saucer-tankers down under cover of darkness to steal our oceans. The saucer-tankers bring in loads of snow to dump on us before picking up their sea-water cargo for the return trip.

    —…—…—…

    An interesting question in radiative physics. If they export saucers of cold as snow and ice does the saucer planet get warmer or colder – figuring the net albedo effect and all those many “tipping points”?

    Can we export warmth to the saucer planet on Obama’s Chicago carbon exchange market for tax credits if we are not actually exporting carbon but are importing water and water vapor to make up for the lowering ocean levels? Do the saucer people get the carbon credits of THEY are not selling carbon offsets, but ARE offsetting carbon by adding water vapor; or does THEIR added water vapor HERE create new tipping points and positive feedbacks here AND there?

    How many new grants can Buzz get us to study the situation here?

  85. Patrick Davis says:
    January 17, 2011 at 2:53 am

    Actually, I live in Portsmouth and right at the top of Portsmouth harbour is Portchester Castle, details here – http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/daysout/properties/portchester-castle/

    It was built initially by the Romans (what have they ever done for us?) and next to it they would moor their ships. If you go there now, guess what you’ll find? Yes, boats moored there – no sea level change AT ALL in two thousand years! Of course the level of the land may well have changed, but surely that’s the point – the land in many parts of the world goes up and down far more than the average sea level.

  86. A method used to smooth out cyclical data (like sunpots fro example) is a moving average with a window of the period of oscillation, it would be interesting to see the data filtered as such to remove the cyclical oscillations.

  87. Norman Page says:
    January 17, 2011 at 10:40 am
    John Kehr – how about rerunning your graph as I suggested to Middleton above with two regression curves one up to and including 2003 and the other starting with 2003 and including the latest 2010 numbers. Thanks Norman

    When I shift to 2003 and use most recent 2010 data, I get basically the same result.

    Pre-2003: 3.43mm/yr
    2003-2010: 2.26mm/yr

  88. Why has the data not been updated since August? Is that typical or are we about to see another data fudging exhibition?

  89. I think this is brilliant, The world is warming and the sea level is falling. I think it shows just how much they have corrupted the data that we now live of a planet that is warming while the oceans are cooling, this is spooky physics.

    Brilliant.

    Also to show that the tide may be turning..

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12186245

    An extensive study of tree growth rings says there could be a link between the rise and fall of past civilisations and sudden shifts in Europe’s climate. The BEEB reporters seem to gob smacked by the link between the rise and fall of civilizations and climate. Until AGW no one was surprised.

  90. To those questioning the ability of satellites to measure sea level with millimeter accuracy, I would like to point out that a current trend in construction is the replacement of optical surveying equipment with gps. It turns out that for skyscraper construction, gps is more capable of being millimeter accurate than traditional surveying methods. As an example, the current worlds tallest building was built using gps to make sure the floors were aligned.

    http://www.leica-geosystems.com/en/Burj-Dubai_69024.htm

  91. LazyTeenager says:
    January 17, 2011 at 4:08 am
    Patrick Davis says
    ——–
    I simply do not believe a satelite can measure sea levels with levels of accuracy in milimeters, yes, they are good, but not THAT good IMO.
    ——–
    They can measure the distance to the moon using the Apollo retro reflecting array with an accuracy of 1 foot.

    An individual with a hand held gadget can measure their own position to an accuracy of about 30 feet.

    Many other astonishing examples are available. Just because it is outside your personal experience does not mean it’s impossible.

    I would refer you to this document

    http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/ml/ocean/J2_handbook_v1-3_no_rev.pdf

    It is the OSTM/Jason-2 Products Handbook which covers the data products available from the Jason-2 satellite which is the latest and greatest of the satellites which have provided data for the ubiquitous UC sea level graph over the years. As such it has had numerous updates over previous units to improve the accuracy of the orbital ephemeris, atmospheric corrections and numerous other factors which affect the accuracy of the data provided.
    In this context I would point out this line from Sec 2.3.1. …”The sea-surface height shall be provided with a globally averaged RMS accuracy of 3.4 cm (1 sigma), or better, assuming 1 second averages.”
    This actually sounds quite encouraging relative to the data from past TOPEX/POSEIDON units, at least until you refer to the table on the next page of the PDF, where the various elements of the error budget are tabulated. Of particular interest is the line for Significant wave height where the uncertainty is given as 10% or 0.5 m whichever is greater. Since waves are present over most of the oceans most of the time, on avg. 2m with daily peaks in the 8-10 m range, it makes even that +/- 3.4 cm number look more than a little dubious. The handbook is quite interesting as it covers fairly thoroughly the elements, methods, and multitude of corrections and fudge factors involved in arriving at the MSL numbers. I think if you spend some time studying it and considering the implications of what it tells you, you will find yourself much less inclined to take these posts about tenths of a millimeter changes in MSL quite so seriously.

    You might also want to check this map

    It shows the baseline surface that the sea level anomalies are derived from. You will note that based solely on variations of the gravitational strength of the planet the equipotential surface varies about 200 METERS. For data consistency they have stuck with a Geoid model that is seriously out of date and which differs significantly with the latest GRACE models

  92. With the catastrophic rise measured in silly millimeters/decade, the whole IPCC rant is just that: Silly.
    If we had millimeter accuracy measurements the last 100 years or better, we’d be seeing the noise in the signal is what the whole fuss is all about.

  93. I don’t mind working in and using metric measurements, but mostly I measure boards to cut for projects around the house these days. Those measurements are in inches and feet, and I apparently think in them in any instance and convert to metric if need be. So I though I’d put the Sea Level Change graph from above in inches just for the perspective. http://i56.tinypic.com/1124nlx.jpg

  94. Anthony Scalzi says:
    January 17, 2011 at 12:03 pm (Edit)
    To those questioning the ability of satellites to measure sea level with millimeter accuracy, I would like to point out that a current trend in construction is the replacement of optical surveying equipment with gps.

    How good is the accuracy from GPS satellites to the scanning satellites though?

    According to John Daly before his death several years ago, the scientists running the satellites were claiming 3cm – 30mm. Given the shifting Geoid I find this remarkable.

  95. latitude says:
    January 17, 2011 at 8:32 am

    R. Gates says:
    January 17, 2011 at 7:46 am
    If the sea level isn’t higher a decade from now, time to rethink the models.
    =====================================================
    Gates, they’ve been modeling now for over 40 years, and still adjusting it constantly, and still claiming accuracy.

    Do you see a total disconnect it that?
    ____
    What I see a disconnect on is AGW skeptics looking at short-term cycles and trying to draw any conclusions about long-term warming from anthropogenic GHG. If the sea level doesn’t continue going up on a decade over decade basis, that might be interesting, but to make any analysis about AGW based on short-term cycles, whether ENSO, PDO, solar, or what have you quite invalid. If the sea-levels are not higher during the decade of 2010-2019, that might be interesting. AGW skeptics are always looking for linear correlations between CO2 and the signs of a warming planet, but no such linear correlations ever show up in the GCM’s.

  96. The process of measuring ocean height by the Jason satellite is described at http://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/technology/. The raw accuracy of a single measurement is about 3 centimeters. The high resulting accuracy is obtained by statistical reduction of hundreds of thousands of measurements in 10 days, which can reduce error by a factor equal to the square root of the measurement sample. For 200,000 measurements (say), this would reduce the error to 0.07 millimeter.

  97. LazyTeenager says:
    January 17, 2011 at 4:15 am
    “I may follow that up, but does this relate to the change over from ship temperatures to more and more Argo bouys being deployed? ”

    No, the Argo system alone shows cooling since 2003.

    Before Argo, forget it.

  98. Oh no!!! Sea levels are dropping! Our ports will high and dry in no time! Obviously, it’s time to panic, albeit in the other direction.

  99. Only government bureaucracy could put the sea level data in one of the places farthest from the ocean

    The Coast Guard HQ is in West Virginia – I guess to act as a second line of defense in case we are invaded.

  100. 2-3 mm does not sound very much …………… just a drop in the ocean .
    aaaaw come on it was to good to miss.

  101. Maybe the trends in the satellite sea levels are not linear at all. There are certainly some interesting aspects to satellite sea level records:

    http://www.trevoole.co.uk/Questioning_Climate/_sgg/mdm1_1.htm

    pdf version here:

    http://www.trevoole.co.uk/Questioning_Climate/userfiles/Will_Satellite_Mean_Sea_Levels_Continue_to_Rise.pdf

    The potential for aliasing in the sampling, and relative geometric problems between the geoid and orbit should raise significant concerns.

  102. R Gates,

    Where do you get your conclusions about long term warming resulting from AGW? Only today new research has apparently shown the effects of the deep ocean , such as the Marianas trench, on CO2 capture. This was a totally unknown phenomenon but you still persist in believing that the science is settled!

  103. Anthony Scalzi says:
    January 17, 2011 at 12:03 pm
    To those questioning the ability of satellites to measure sea level with millimeter accuracy, I would like to point out that a current trend in construction is the replacement of optical surveying equipment with gps. It turns out that for skyscraper construction, gps is more capable of being millimeter accurate than traditional surveying methods. As an example, the current worlds tallest building was built using gps to make sure the floors were aligned.

    http://www.leica-geosystems.com/en/Burj-Dubai_69024.htm

    If you delve a little deeper on the link you provided you’ll find this

    http://www.leica-geosystems.com/downloads123/zz/gpsgis/Viva%20GNSS/brochures-datasheet/Leica_Viva_GNSS_GS15_receiver_DS_us.pdf

    If you scan down through it you’ll find that this top of the line GPS system is capable of accuracy of 10mm +/- 1 ppm horiz, 20mm+/- 1 ppm vert, in kinematic mode i.e. moving. But GPS is significantly different from sat altimetry in that the ground receivers are electronically linked to the GPS sat constellation and can avail themselves of a number of techniques which greatly improve their accuracy. The sat altimeters are bouncing signals off swaths of ocean surface hundreds of km wide. Surfaces that are varying systemically and chaotically over a range of several hundred meters in elevation as well as varying significantly in reflectance. Measurement times are barely a second and, since they only pass over a set of coordinates once every 10 days, no measurement is ever repeated.
    Getting any of these systems to perform anywhere near their specs is a difficult and daunting task and that’s for ones you can actually put your hands on, monitor closely and recalibrate when necessary, which tends to be often. Systems riding on sats orbiting 1336 km above the Earth at thousands of mph are much more problematic. It is a sad fact that many in the scientific community still haven’t resolved the difference between precision and accuracy. When you analyse a data set, your computer will spit out the numbers to however many decimal places you instruct it to, but that is no indication that the data is actually accurate to anywhere near that level, even if it does appear to resolve to consistent values.

  104. R. Gates says:

    “What I see a disconnect on is AGW skeptics looking at short-term cycles and trying to draw any conclusions about long-term warming from anthropogenic GHG. If the sea level doesn’t continue going up on a decade over decade basis, that might be interesting, but to make any analysis about AGW based on short-term cycles, whether ENSO, PDO, solar, or what have you quite invalid.”

    Well, Mr. Gates, I see a disconnect between global warming alarmists who conveniently ignore that fact that the sea level has been rising for the past 6000 years and yet somehow, despite this happening for the entirely of human civilization, the current rise is unprecedented and due to human activities.

    Oh wait, the rise is “accelerating,” that has always been the cry of alarmists, and yet where is the proof? The claim is that the rise is accelerating, but if the opposite is occurring then that is more than simply “interesting” – it is yet another example of the failed predictions of the AGW movement being ignored.

  105. Someone asked why there is a clear seasonal effect, and no-one answered. It is because the Earth’s orbit is elliptical, with perihelion in January. That means that at this time of the year the Earth captures more of the Sun’s heat than in July, so the southern oceans warm by more than the northern oceans cool. This causes a sea level spike in the early months of the year (with a lag).

    Rich.

  106. I can just see it now… the next travesty for Dr T…
    where the flip is the missing water?
    I suppose of course, then we will have some weird theory that humans are drinking it all and millions are suffering water retention or suchlike.

    Just as a very minor aside – in Spain, I believe they have real problems with groundwater levels lowering – so could this not have some very minor effect on sea levels (but what about all the other countries extracting Groundwater?)- I mean, all the extracted water over the last few hundred years must have gone somewhere if it has not been replenished in the ground!

  107. What are we gonna do with all the emergency plans for all coastal towns in Norway now?

    All those people, spending late nights planning for IPCC’s armageddon?

    Make stone-tablets and dig’em down for some archeologist to find a thousand years from now?

  108. I found Dave Wendt’s comments of January 17, 2011 at 2:19 pm, extremely interesting.

    As he points out, the manner in which sea level altimetric data is taken is less than ideal. I fully concur with the observation “It is a sad fact that many in the scientific community still haven’t resolved the difference between precision and accuracy”. Too damn right and this has a bearing on much of the data that is being used in support of the AGW theory (which should always be accompanied with error parameters).

    I couldn’t help smiling when I saw that the system data sheet for the Leica geosytem states that their system “…is capable of accuracy of 10mm +/- 1 ppm horiz, 20mm+/- 1 ppm vert, in kinematic mode i.e. moving.” Whilst this is not a like for like comparison, the base of the Great Pyramid at Giza (Khufu’s pyramid) has a base length of just over 230 metres and is horizontal to just under 21mm! This base was carved (using copper chissels) out of the Giza Plateau, not cast with some self leveling liquid! It just makes you think and wonder in awe of what Man is actually capable of. Even if those Egyptians had had the Leica geosystem, the base of that pyramid could not have been constructed much more accurately.

    This little aside is of some relevance since it is a reminder of and it endorses my view that should there be global warming (due to whatever casue) and should this warming actually result in real (as opposed to perceived) problems (which I rather doubt), I have no doubt that Man can easily adapt to whatever challenges are thrown his way. Adaption rather than mitigation is undoubtedly the best policy with which to address any (perceived) threat of global warming/climate change.

  109. Michael J. Dunn says: “…The raw accuracy of a single measurement is about 3 centimeters. The high resulting accuracy is obtained by statistical reduction of hundreds of thousands of measurements in 10 days, which can reduce error by a factor equal to the square root of the measurement sample. For 200,000 measurements (say), this would reduce the error to 0.07 millimeter.”

    That assumes the error is random, i.e., zero bias, which is often not the case. Sorry, you’ve still got a sow’s ear, no silk purse.

  110. kwik says:
    January 17, 2011 at 3:14 pm
    What are we gonna do with all the emergency plans for all coastal towns in Norway now?

    All those people, spending late nights planning for IPCC’s armageddon?

    ———–

    Don’t worry Kwik. According to the Rorvik data, sea level has been as flat as a pancake these past 40 years. See

    https://www.bodc.ac.uk/data/information_and_inventories/gloss_handbook/stations/234/plot/040136/

    So no need for sleepless nights.

  111. R. Gates says: January 17, 2011 at 1:12 pm

    What I see a disconnect on is AGW skeptics looking at short-term cycles and trying to draw any conclusions about long-term warming from anthropogenic GHG.

    You mean like focusing on Arctic sea ice for less that a full 60-100 year cycle?

  112. <i?See – owe to Rich says: January 17, 2011 at 2:57 pm

    Someone asked why there is a clear seasonal effect, and no-one answered. It is because the Earth’s orbit is elliptical, with perihelion in January. That means that at this time of the year the Earth captures more of the Sun’s heat than in July, so the southern oceans warm by more than the northern oceans cool. This causes a sea level spike in the early months of the year (with a lag).

    I wondered if anyone was going to answer that question. I was guessing the snow cover in the NH winter might be related.

  113. to quote General melchett –

    “If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through. “

  114. DO NOT FEED THE LAZY TEENAGE TROLL!!!

    Study him to learn his devious methods. Like in his comments on the absolute accuracy of satellites measuring sea level into one single global figure, he leave out waves, tides, moon’s deformation of the goeoid, orbit pertubations, etc, etc while trying to sound scientific by repeating one simple proper statement easily Googled on radars. Don’t feed him.

    But here’s a stick to poke him with. ☺

  115. Golly Gosh it’s obvious what’s happening – the oceans are evaporating.

    New research shows that if global warming is not reversed this minute the oceans will be gone by 3011. This trend is probably already irreversible

  116. R. Gates

    But the models say it should be accelerating and should have been accelerating the last 10 years. It isn’t and it hasn’t been. AGW is, again, falsified.

  117. kwik says:
    January 17, 2011 at 3:14 pm

    Your entire country is full of cliffs going straight into the sea. How can anyone possibly be worried about sea level rise?

  118. Well this is certainly easily understood. A devilish confabulation of Trenberth’s “hidden heat energy” reappearing from the deepest depths of the ocean in the hottest year in the whole history of years has literally boiled the sea off. Those bazillions of tons of water are now forming themselves into a serpentine atmospheric stream headed for Sacramento! Embattled governor Jerry Brown will have to raise taxes 20,000% in order to sop up the water in an environmentally sensitive way and to cover the “force majeure” pay claims of the WWBOSMI (World Wide Brotherhood of Slop Moppers International).

    President Obama will give Republicans a scolding on the need for civility in the face of this enormous American-engineered environmental apocalypse, and demand that Chevron Oil cough up ONE TRILLION BUCKS to pay for this, since, as it is headquartered in San Francisco, it is obviously responsible and it’s his duty “to kick ass.”

  119. I would think all the recent rain like in Queensland would have a much bigger effect on sea level drop than a hundred years ago before dams were built. Somebody on WUWT pointed out that this La Nina and the troposheric temperature drop from a year ago (.96 degrees C today) must have wrung out of the atmosphere a lot of water.

  120. Dave Andrews says:
    January 17, 2011 at 2:01 pm

    R Gates,

    Where do you get your conclusions about long term warming resulting from AGW? Only today new research has apparently shown the effects of the deep ocean , such as the Marianas trench, on CO2 capture. This was a totally unknown phenomenon but you still persist in believing that the science is settled!
    _______

    I never have said the science is settled. Please don’t put words in my mouth. I’ve only said the it is more likely than not that AGW is occurring. There is still much we do not know, and that makes science exciting– especially when dealing with a system as complex and on the edge of chaos as the climate– you can EXPECT surprises.

    _____
    #
    #
    Richard M says:
    January 17, 2011 at 4:52 pm

    R. Gates says: January 17, 2011 at 1:12 pm

    What I see a disconnect on is AGW skeptics looking at short-term cycles and trying to draw any conclusions about long-term warming from anthropogenic GHG.

    You mean like focusing on Arctic sea ice for less that a full 60-100 year cycle?

    ___

    Oh, so now the skeptics think they’ve identified a 60-100 cycle of Arctic sea ice? Please provide the peer reviewed research on that.

    Arctic sea ice is declining because the Arctic is warming and the Arctic is warming because CO2 and other GHG’s are at their highest levels in thousands of years…but please, let’s take a look at this “60-100 cycle” as researched and documented in the peer-reviewed journals.

    ____
    mike g says:
    January 17, 2011 at 6:30 pm

    R. Gates

    But the models say it should be accelerating and should have been accelerating the last 10 years. It isn’t and it hasn’t been. AGW is, again, falsified.
    _____
    Mike, you would do well to understand the difference between AGW Theory and Global Circulation Models or Global Climate Models. They are far from the same thing, and simply because the models are not perfect (nor could they ever be when dealing with a system on the edge of chaos), that does not in any way invalidate the basic premise that increasing GHG’s (initiated by CO2, but including water vapor and methane) will warm the planet. You will also do well to actually study some of the models and understand that they don’t all use the same basis, and none of them predict a straight linear relationship between rising GHG’s.

  121. LazyTeenager said on January 17, 2011 at 4:15 am:

    John Marshall says
    ——–
    According to the Argo date set ocean surface temperatures are falling. It follows that there will be a thermal shrinking of this water thus lowering sea levels.
    ——–
    I may follow that up, but does this relate to the change over from ship temperatures to more and more Argo bouys being deployed? Apparently the ship temps are slightly warm due to the sampling process. This in turn gave a spurious cooling trend.

    Thus a spurious warming trend, brought about by slight warming during sampling, has lead to a “spurious cooling trend” when the measurements got closer to reality?

    What’s happening ain’t exactly as you put it. As found on the notable Seafriends site, from Dr. J. Floor Anthoni comes this about ocean temperatures:

    Ocean surface temperatures have been measured by ships for several centuries. First it was done by collecting surface water in a bucket while steaming on, but later the engine’s cooling water inlet was used. Unfortunately this made a difference, because the water inlet is at some depth under water. Today this may serve to advantage because satellite can measure only the top few centimetres of the sea because infrared radiation is rapidly absorbed by water. Because water continually evaporates from the sea, the surface film is somewhat colder than a few metres down.

    Thus the changeover from measurements using buckets to measuring water inlet temperatures would have yielded a false warming, as the change was from measuring cooler surface water to warmer deeper water.

    But as both the Argo floats and the water inlet readings are measuring temperatures under the cooler surface film, there should be no spurious cooling trend noted.

    Matching like to like, satellite measurements can be matched to bucket-based measurements, water inlet can be matched to the appropriate Argo readings. Other match-ups should have adjustments, if you can get agreement as to what they should be.

  122. @LazyTeenager:

    “..trying to produce a very definite conclusion from the visual inspection of a small short term change at the end of a slow long term trend. That can’t be done.”

    Once again, spoken like a true AGW Skeptic. Welcome to the fold!

    Seriously though, the conclusion of this article is that, damagingly to IPCC predictions, the rate of sea level rise is not currently increasing. If you didn’t get that then perhaps you should read the article again.

    If you are trying to make the point that between an arbitrarily chosen set of dates representing a blip on the geological timescale, it is possible to extrapolate a trend and assert (without evidence) that it is linear, your comment is irrelevant to the conclusion of this article. It is also tautological.

    I’ve heard the statement “sea level rise is accelerating!” parroted ad-nauseum by AGW proponents. The information presented in this article shows this statement to be false (tempted to use ‘unequivocally’ there!)

    Please shout if you need a definition of the term ‘accelerating’.

  123. LazyTeenager says:
    January 17, 2011 at 4:15 am
    John Marshall says
    ——–
    According to the Argo date set ocean surface temperatures are falling. It follows that there will be a thermal shrinking of this water thus lowering sea levels.
    ——–
    I may follow that up, but does this relate to the change over from ship temperatures to more and more Argo bouys being deployed? Apparently the ship temps are slightly warm due to the sampling process. This in turn gave a spurious cooling trend.

    Ship temperatures? It didn’t take you lot very long to think up that lame excuse! Bit of Friday afternoon job, I dont think even the MSM would fall for it. OHC as measured by the Argos floats is falling down to 700m depth – not much room for influence of your ship temps.

    Other evidence of increased deep mixing and strengthened THC includes the following Nature publication:

    http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081129/full/news.2008.1262.html

    In the context of sharp stratification of ocean temperature downwards with depth, any increase in vertical mixing will move heat down and cool the upper layer. The upper oceans are cooling.

    “Ship temps!” You couldn’t make it up.

  124. Lazy teenager

    Have you any idea at all as to how sea surface temperatures were historically measured from ships? The process is completely laughable as any sort of scientific measure.

    Perhaps you would like to give us your version of the process that enables the official figures to be accurate to hundredths of a degree ?

    Tonyb

  125. For some reason I can hear groundskeeper Willie’s voice warning us:

    “ooooh, it will drop now, laddy, but like a bow and arrow it will only go back so far before it shoots forward with immense power!!!”

  126. Hahahaha, is this post serious? Come on Kehr, you’ve done some statistics and you’ve actually looked at the IPCC projections haven’t you? INCLUDING the uncertainty and interannual variations? Either you haven’t, or you’ve simply ignored it and made up your own ‘facts’.

    IPCC sea level rise projections are less than a metre by 2100, although this should be a minimum bound due to dynamic ice sheet processes. They are not a linear increase. The last 20 years rate of sea level rise has been 80% faster than the 20th century average. If it stays at the current rate of 3.1 mm/yr from the full length of data it will be 31 cm this century, bang in the middle of the _actual_ IPCC projections and not disagreeing with them.

  127. Matter says:
    January 18, 2011 at 4:40 am
    Hahahaha, is this post serious?
    IPCC sea level rise projections are less than a metre by 2100, although this should be a minimum bound due to dynamic ice sheet processes. They are not a linear increase. The last 20 years rate of sea level rise has been 80% faster than the 20th century average.”

    Really, hard to see that here. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png
    It is not hard to find all the “scientist” and reporters warning of a possible 1 meter rise, or far greater.

  128. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    January 17, 2011 at 7:43 pm
    LazyTeenager said on January 17, 2011 at 4:15 am:

    John Marshall says
    ——–
    According to the Argo date set ocean surface temperatures are falling. It follows that there will be a thermal shrinking of this water thus lowering sea levels.
    ——–
    I may follow that up, but does this relate to the change over from ship temperatures to more and more Argo bouys being deployed? Apparently the ship temps are slightly warm due to the sampling process. This in turn gave a spurious cooling trend.

    Thus a spurious warming trend, brought about by slight warming during sampling, has lead to a “spurious cooling trend” when the measurements got closer to reality?

    ______________

    I have considerable experience with ship’s temperatures. I can tell you that if anything ship’s temperatures under record sea surface temperature. Thus the comment “Apparently the ship temps are slightly warm due to the sampling process. This in turn gave a spurious cooling trend.” is wrong!!

    I am concerned that warmists wish to downward adjust these temperatures. Whilst I have a dislike for adjusting any temperature record (prefering simply to know how and the context in which it was taken), if there is to be an adjustment it should in fact be an upwards adjustment.

    Let me explain. Ship’s temperatures are taken in the inlet manifold of the cold sea water cooling duct. Whilst each ship has a slightly different design primarily depending upon its size, the sea water inlet is drawn at a depth 0f between say 8 to 15 metres below the surface. A depth of around 11 to 12 meteres below the surface could be regarded as typical. Accordingly, surface temperature is not being measured but rather sea temperature at a depth of about 11 to 12 meteres is being measured. As everyone knows, generally, water temperatures cool with depth and hence a measurement of temperature drawn from a depth of 11 to 12 metres would be expected to record a lower temperature than one taken at or near the surface.

    Further, sea temperature may be under recorded in the logs. Many ships carry what are termed heated cargoes (various types of oil cargoes – particularly veg oils) which require the ship to heat the cargo to stop it solidifying. The ship owner gets paid for heating when he heats. Of course with very warm tropical seas, cargoes cool slower and the natural prevailing sea water temperature may be sufficient to keep the cargo free flowing such that much heating may not be required. It is therefore in the ship owner’s interest to record sea water temperatures slightly lower than those truly prevailing so that he can claim and charge for heating when in fact no heat is being applied. I am not saying that the practice is uniform throughout the shipping industry but it certainly does occur. Thus a number of ships are recording/reporting a lower temperature than that actually experienced.

    Accordingly, for these two reasons, there is reason to believe that temperature records provided by ships under assess/under record the sea surface temperature. That being the case, sea temperatures may have decreased even more than the ‘team’ (or those closely connected with them and/or supporters thereof) are prepared to accept.

  129. Hector M. says:
    January 17, 2011 at 11:05 am

    C:\Documents and Settings\Owner\My Documents\Global Warming\Sea Level\Rising sea levels attributed to global groundwater extraction.mht

    I hope this helps. Good luck.[ that won’t work . . the link I mean]

  130. The graph with the 60 day smoothing shows quite regular drops in sea level and 2010 shows no real difference to the drops of 2006, 2003, 2001, 1998 and 1997.

    The graph also clearly shows a linear increase in sea level from 1994 to 2010 so I’m not really sure what the point of this article is.

    Am I missing something or is it trying to show that despite short term drops in sea level the general trend is a up?

    Quite refreshing for this website I must say!

  131. thegoodlocust says:
    January 17, 2011 at 2:19 pm
    R. Gates says:

    “What I see a disconnect on is AGW skeptics looking at short-term cycles and trying to draw any conclusions about long-term warming from anthropogenic GHG. If the sea level doesn’t continue going up on a decade over decade basis, that might be interesting, but to make any analysis about AGW based on short-term cycles, whether ENSO, PDO, solar, or what have you quite invalid.”

    Well, Mr. Gates, I see a disconnect between global warming alarmists who conveniently ignore that fact that the sea level has been rising for the past 6000 years and yet somehow, despite this happening for the entirety of human civilization, the current rise is unprecedented and due to human activities.

    Oh wait, the rise is “accelerating,” that has always been the cry of alarmists, and yet where is the proof? The claim is that the rise is accelerating, but if the opposite is occurring then that is more than simply “interesting” – it is yet another example of the failed predictions of the AGW movement being ignored.

    —————————

    Have a look at Figure 3a in this paper on sea level.

    You’ll notice that it is certainly increasing at an accelerating rate and the time scale that it is taken at will certainly require more than year or two’s data to slow it down to what it was in the late 1800’s.

  132. Mike D. says:
    January 17, 2011 at 1:32 pm
    Oh no!!! Sea levels are dropping! Our ports will high and dry in no time! Obviously, it’s time to panic, albeit in the other direction.

    Mike, while it may seem funny (given the hysteria of the AGW movement), it is serious. There are many ports that would become useless to modern ocean traffic with a drop of just a few inches in sea level. Think of the Inland ports like Philly and Richmond.

  133. [jorkekafkazar says: January 17, 2011 at 3:44 pm
    [That assumes the error is random, i.e., zero bias, which is often not the case. Sorry, you’ve still got a sow’s ear, no silk purse.]

    Let’s see, now. Up to my previous post, most everyone on this thread was asking the question of how these sea heights were measured. I provided a link to the source agency where they described the technique quite transparently. I explained how statistical processing can be used to tighten up on error spread. This is all perfectly legitimate science.

    I have the strong impression you did not bother to read that information. Your comment on statistics (random = zero bias) indicates that you do not understand statistics. “Random” is the usual acceptance of Gaussian error as a description of the random error. Bias is a separate error. They often go together. In the case of the Jason satellite, however, two independent radar altimeters are being used, so a comparison of the means of their measurements would be a way of discovering whether there are biases between the instruments. It is a little difficult to understand where a source of timing bias might arise, for that is the actual measurement process. But if there is “bias,” it represent a permanent offset of the altitude measurement and would be automatically cancelled by any difference comparisions (this year vs. last year, for example).

    Finally, have the gumption to write NASA an e-mail asking them how they account for instrumental bias, instead of casting snarky aspersions against people who are performing legitimate science. I’m no fan of NASA in its modern incarnation, but not everyone in it is corrupt. Unfortunately, Jorge, I now have your measure.

  134. Experiment a little… do a WEB search on ‘department of ecology’ + ‘carbon credits’
    I did this in my own State of Washington. You will find near countless meeting minutes and conversations about Carbon credit income. It seems as if they’ve already spent the money! This is likely the reason the AGW ‘lie’ is so hard to kill. Bureaucrats have no fear of AGW, instead they are giddy about an unlimited funding source, enough money to fund every dream…. like young children anticipating a trip to Disneyland….. and you want to take it all away from them!!
    No wonder they scream “the debate is over!”

  135. Patrick Davis says:
    January 17, 2011 at 2:53 am

    I simply do not believe a satelite can measure sea levels with levels of accuracy in milimeters, yes, they are good, but not THAT good IMO.

    Argumentum ad ignorantium. Just because you do not know how such measurement works does not mean it does not work. As long as the mechanism (literally bouncing radar off of the surface of the ocean) has sufficient resolution to eliminate aliasing caused from waves, tides, etc., it is possible to extract a mean level of oceans down to any arbitrary scale (limited by many factors, of course.)

    That does NOT mean the results are accurate, nor does it mean I endorse the results (I do not know enough about the specifics of their method,) but it does mean you cannot simply say the results are wrong because it is your opinion they are impossible to acheive. Indeed, you would be surprised at what can be done with a little ingenuity (and intense signal processing theory.)

    Mark

  136. I’ve come up with a “AGW save” theory!! Oceans are still rising, but below 2000 meter. 10000 IPCC scientists all agree…. [OK but this is very cryptic]

  137. Mark

    I haven’t looked back at all the comments but I may have been the first person to question whether satellites can measure sea level to within 1 mm. I am not saying that they cannot, but rather just throwing the possibility that they may not be able to do so into the melting pot. I am certainly appreciative of any comments explaining how measurements are taken and the specification of the system.

    One point that galls me is that frequently data is set out without setting out the limitations of the accuracy of the data set, the relevant margin of error. Why does the satellite data not set out the measurement errors?

    As regards errors, the first point is can a satellite maintain its orbital position above the earth to within 1mm? We all know about orbital decay which require satellites from time to time to be repositioned. There are also various gravitational factors which lead to samll orbital changes such as the sun, the moon and the conjunction of the gas giants. Can these cause a 1mm change in orbital course? Personally, I do not know. No doubt someone reading this thread could supply some answers.

    Second, if the satellite is orbiting at say 1350 km above the earth, then that is some 1,350,000,000 mm above the target. As I understand matters, the satellite emits a signal which is then timed for rebound. It is measuring a distance of some 2,700,000,000 mm. May be, the system can measure to a wavelength of light but may be it cannot distinguish between 2,700,000,001 mm and 2,700,000,000 mm and 2,699,999,999 mm. Again, I do not know the answer. May be someone else does.

    Third, there is the problem that one is measuring an ever changing randomly chaotic system. With waves, swell, wind spray, tides (gravitational bulge of the oceans) etc such that one is measuring a surface that is continuously distorting and on each subsequent pass will never be like the previous pass. I understand that statistical regression techniques are used to improve resolution. However, it is easy to see that this is not like a laser measure a fixed target in a laboratory and some error inevitably must be imparted.

    Finally, what are we measuring given plate tectonics? How do we know that as plates ride over and under each other that on average they are not causing a mm or so difference in the depth of ocean floors. Continents are moving relative to one another, the shape of oceans is changing slightly, some land masses are rising some are falling, this causes a displacement effect. So too erosion. Do we know what effect these are having so appropriate adjustment can be made?

    On top of these there is the interpretation issue. This is completely separate since it is not a measurement/data issue but rather a question of what are changes in ocean levels telling us, e.g., thermal expansion, ice melt, water extraction from land, reduction in river flows due to damming, irrigation etc?

  138. SteveE says:
    January 18, 2011 at 7:05 am

    “Have a look at Figure 3a in this paper on sea level.

    You’ll notice that it is certainly increasing at an accelerating rate and the time scale that it is taken at will certainly require more than year or two’s data to slow it down to what it was in the late 1800′s.”

    An accelerating rate? Look at figure 1.a from the same paper. You’ll see the sea level rising for the past 20,000 years and have a very slow growth for the past 6-7 thousand years. If that graph is any indication then it would appear that our oceans are close to their maximum height – the vast vast majority of that height gained thousands of years before human civilization.

    You can’t honestly call the growth in the figure you cite as “accelerating” when it is well known that is the period when the LIA ended and solar activity was increasing sharply. Just look at the graph from the 1930’s to the present and it is clearly a linear trend.

    Misleading “trend” lines put in by agenda driven scientists are quite annoying.

  139. “Will the IPCC get around to suggesting positive feedback from solar output, the way it does with greenhouse gases?”

    Consider climate is like a pendulum. A forcing will cause it to shift to one side or the other. When a steady wind blows from the side, it will shift the pendulum but it will not increase the amplitude.

    Now take the same wind, but only apply it during the phase where the pendulum is swinging away. Over time this will greatly amplify the motion of the pendulum.

    What appears to be mostly ignored in climate science is that everything around us has resonant frequencies, and cyclic forcing can have much greater effects than constant forcings, or slowly increasing forcings.

    As a result, those forcings that co-incidentally match the harmonic frequencies of natural systems are what likely will drive long term climate cycles.

  140. Patrick Davis says:
    January 17, 2011 at 7:06 am

    …You will also find no significant indication in Royal Naval archives of sea level rise in Royal Naval history, nowhere. And nowhere do I see sea level rises relative to changes in land levels, which fluctuate just as much as the tides.

    But you can certainly find an interest in the topic, dating back to at least 1965:

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/w40hx5073034400r/

    I wasn’t about to drop $34 to satisfy my curiosity.

    TonyK says:
    January 17, 2011 at 11:22 am

    “…Yes, boats moored there – no sea level change AT ALL in two thousand years! “

    Well the changes under discussion are a matter of a meter or two, not fathoms. And I’d be astonished if subsequent occupants haven’t made substantial alterations, including docking facilities, which may (likely have) disguise the original mooring points.

  141. SteveE says:
    January 18, 2011 at 7:05 am

    “Have a look at Figure 3a in this paper on sea level.

    You’ll notice that it is certainly increasing at an accelerating rate and the time scale that it is taken at will certainly require more than year or two’s data to slow it down to what it was in the late 1800′s.”No Steve, Now look at this chart.

    The only way to get an increase in the rate of rise is to go from the lowest point in the past 20 years to the highest peak. Of course CAGW propenets do this with the ENSO cycles over thirty years, so why not with sea level. Good idea to promote an agenda, but bad science. The level of rise is below the 20th century for the last decade, matches the 20th century for the last thiry years, and this de-acceleration is accelerating. There is NO indication that CO2 has done anything to increase the 20th century rate of sea level rise.

  142. Michael J. Dunn says:
    January 18, 2011 at 1:30 pm
    It is amazing to me that so many commenters are willing to spend time expressing ignorant opinion and speculation, instead of reading up on the subject and learning something: http://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/technology/.
    …………………………………..

    Well Michael, it appears from the data sheet that raw measurments are accurate to within 3 cm.

    Thereafter, they carry out their statistical regression and suggest that the measurements are, after that process, accurate to within “several” millimetres. It is unfortunate that they do not define “several” but since a couple is two, and a few is three, several is usually regarded as four or more. So I guess all going well, they can state that sea level rise is say 3mm +/- 4mm. So on an annual basis the increase in sea level is within the margins of error.

    Hence what this suggest is that say over a period of some years (I would say at least 5), they would give a worthwhile indication of the change, eg 15 mm +/- 4
    mm (assuming that each year the sea level rose by 3 mm for each of the 5 years).

    However, as I noted this is all going well. It is interesting that they test the accuracy of the orbit via set land data points which do not suffer from the same chaotic measurment problems. There is nothing in the data sheet that suggests that the problems with chaos have been fully addressed (albeit I do accept that the statistical regression does help to reduce this factor). Likewise, there is nothing in that sheet to suggest that they have taken account of possible (and I don’t put it higher than that) changes caused by moving land masses/plate techtonics.

  143. “The best source of sea level data is The University of Colorado.”

    There is also CSIRO:

    http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/

    And AVISO:

    http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/en/news/ocean-indicators/mean-sea-level/

    “The rate of rise over the past 5 years has been half the overall rate. At the rate of the past 5 years it will be the year 2774 before the oceans rise a single meter. Of course a decrease in the rate is technically an negative acceleration in the rate of rise, so technically the rate of rise is accelerating, but in a negative direction”

    Only if you use the University of Colorado data, CSIRO and AVISO show a nearly constant rate of sea level rise of approximately 3.2 mm/yr:

    http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/en/news/ocean-indicators/mean-sea-level/products-images/index.html

    http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html

    “Even more interesting is the fact that from 1992-2005 there was an increase each year. 2006 was the first year to show a drop in the global sea level.”

    Not in the AVISO and CSIRO data. There was a drop between 2007 and 2008, that was obviously causated by the strong 2007-2008 La Niña.

    “2010 will be the 2nd year to show a decrease in sea level. That is correct, 2 of the past 5 years are going to show a decrease in sea level.”

    Sea level goes up and down seasonally. Over it there is a trend of 3.2 mm/yr. Even removing the annual signals, there is a lot of variability in all years. This is totally expected, because weather and climate oscillations (the biggest is ENSO) add noise to the data. There are spikes and drops every year.

    ” 2010 could likely show a significant drop global sea level. By significant I mean it is possible that it will likely drop between 2-3 mm from 2009.”

    If you do not remove the seasonal signal, of course it will, as happens every year. If you remove the seasonal data, there is still the signal of ENSO and all the other oceanic oscillations. A drop in 2-3 mm will not be surprising given the current moderate-to-strong La Niña

    “If the drop does show up as expected it is possible that 2010 will show the largest drop in sea level ever recorded.”

    Maybe, maybe not. This is just guessing.

    “A drop in sea level for 2 of the past 5 years is a strong indicator that a changing sea level is not a great concern.”

    No. Its is an indication that there is noise in the data, mainly from ENSO.

  144. “In order for the IPCC prediction to be correct of a 1m increase in sea level by 2100,”

    This is quite false. The IPCC does NOT predicted a sea level rise of 1m. It predicted a sea level rise between 20 and 70 cm.

    See here:

    BRIEFING: a post-IPCC AR4 update on sealevel rise

    http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/downloads/797655_16br01_slr_080911.pdf

    “the rate must be almost 11 mm/yr every year for the next 89 years.”

    No. For the satellite altimeter period, the predicted mean rate is around 2 mm/yr , not 11 mm/yr. The rates measured are much higher, around 3.2 mm/yr. So the IPCC UNDERestimated the rate of sea level rise.

    See here:

    Recent Climate Observations Compared to Projections

    http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Nature/rahmstorf_etal_science_2007.pdf

    “Since the rate is dropping, it makes the prediction increasingly unlikely.”

    The rate is not dropping according to AVISO and CSIRO. The University of Colorado shows a pause in sea level rise in the 2007-2008 La Niña, followed by a continuation of trend of the years before (a polynomial fit will give a deceleration, but it is more accurate to say that there was a nearly constant rate of SLR, then a pause, and then again the same rate of SLR)

    “Not even once in the past 20 years has that rate ever been achieved. The average rate of 2.7 mm/yr is only 25% of the rate needed for the IPCC prediction to be correct.”

    This statement is based on a fantasy “IPCC prediction”. The reality is that the rate of sea level rise (3.3 mm/yr) is 60 % HIGHER than the mean sea level rise rate predicted by the IPCC (2 mm/yr).

  145. From Peru/Mars

    For the record, from your aviso link, which give 3.28 mm/yr:

    Analysing the uncertainty of each altimetry correction made for calculating the GMSL, as well as a comparison with tide gauges gives an error in the GMSL slope of approximately 0.6 mm/year with a 90% confidence interval.

    This graph, which for some reason you don’t like, shows 3.0 +/-0.4 mm/yr.

    Using your own numbers for a range of 20 -70 cm rise by 2100, and taking the mid-point, SLR will have to average about 5 mm/yr.

    Of course, the low end (20 mm/yr) will merely repeat the slr for the 20th century, so one would hardly give any points for that.

  146. richard verney says: January 17, 2011 at 3:37 pm
    I fully concur with the observation “It is a sad fact that many in the scientific community still haven’t resolved the difference between precision and accuracy”.

    I recall from geodesy class that precision was half the distance between the finest lines on your ruler, while accuracy was how close your measurement was to the actual truth. At that time, geodetics consisted of setting up a grid of points around the earth and measuring the distances between them, just trying to define the geoid. From our station in Colorado Springs down to the one in Trinidad, we had it down to 30 meters spherical. That was using theodolites, gravimeters, and photos of passing satellites timed from WWV adjusted for propagation error.

    Mr Dunn has it right. You can get accuracy far greater than the precision of your instruments by taking a whole bunch of measurements, and the “few hundred thousand” satellite readings is a whole bunch. The reference to an out of date geoid doesn’t matter, as long as it’s the same geoid. It’s like the zero line in the temperature anomaly measurements, just an arbitrary choice.

    That doesn’t apply to the temperature readings, though. The old liquid thermometers were marked to 1 °F I believe, but they were taking only one high and one low reading for each separate day, and the all the thermometers were reading different locations. So half a degree precision, no better than half a degree accuracy for the climate network.

    The good thing about the sea level readings drop is that it takes some steam out of the mad rush to “do something” about the alleged climate problem. Same cheery thing about the big snowstorms.

    I’ll toss in tokyoboy‘s Japan tide gauge chart –

    The entirety of the rising satellite data is encompassed in just the last rising oscillation of the Japan chart, so we may actually see a significant lowering for years to come. Maybe.

  147. Has the amount of snow on continental land masses last winter and in December 2010 been taken into account?

  148. I hypothesise that global warming has caused proliferation of sponges which have soaked up all the water. Where do I get a grant to test this?

  149. D. J. Hawkins says:
    January 18, 2011 at 2:22 pm

    Well the changes under discussion are a matter of a meter or two, not fathoms.

    A fathom is 6 feet or about 1.8 meters. So 2 meters is “fathoms”.

  150. Hmmm, what happens if data indicates a sea-level drop but climate models do not?

    Prof. Lindzen knows:

    “Inevitably in climate science, when data conflicts with models, a small coterie of scientists can be counted upon to modify the data. Thus, Santer, et al (2008), argue that stretching uncertainties in observations and models might marginally eliminate the inconsistency. That the data should always need correcting to agree with models is totally implausible and indicative of a certain corruption within the climate science community.”

  151. richard verney says:
    January 18, 2011 at 10:35 am

    I am not saying that they cannot, but rather just throwing the possibility that they may not be able to do so into the melting pot. I am certainly appreciative of any comments explaining how measurements are taken and the specification of the system.

    Questioning the ability to do so, with the intent of learning more, as you apparently are doing, and flatly stating that it cannot be done with an absence of the understanding of the process are two different things. The former is an attempt to learn, the latter is argumentum ad ignorantium.

    The link Michael Dunn provided does not specify the type of radar being used, so I cannot comment on specifics, but I can say this is one instance in which the much touted law of large numbers actually works. In other words, you can average over multiple readings to reduce the noise in the aggregate measurement. By integrating over a long period of time, you constrain your noise bandwidth to a very small range (less noise power) while maintaining the same signal power, i.e., your SNR gets larger with increased integration. The same principle is used to get very accurate GPS measurements, for example. Since the measurement is a distance, an average actually has physical meaning, too, not just mathematical.

    Interestingly, the clutter induced by the surface of the water is not typically Gaussian. Depending upon the waveform used in the radar (particularly the frequency,) it could be rather complex. There is significant literature gaining ground in the radar community regarding the treatment of clutter as a compound K distribution, a distribution that does not have a lot of exposition in and of itself.

    Mark

  152. The first chart above calls out for cumulative sum analysis.
    I had industrial experience of the power of the technique over many years when then new computing power became available to convert from the difficult-to-interpret “mask” presentation to a bar chart.
    The management value came because:
    1.Cusum “Change points” became time indicators of changes in process.
    2. The statistical significance between periods of production could be clearly illustrated
    The technique has been advanced beyond my very limited industrial experience, see:
    http://www.variation.com/cpa/tech/changepoint.html#Change-Point Analysis

    Maybe someone more qualified than I would like to have a look at this?

    Don

  153. D. J. Hawkins says:
    January 18, 2011 at 2:22 pm
    Well the changes under discussion are a matter of a meter or two, not fathoms.

    Err, no, 2000 years times 3mm = 6 metres – roughly twenty feet! I can absolutely guarantee the sea level here has not changed that much. In fact, a little way up the coast is Fishbourne Roman Palace which used to be right on the coast – or a least next to an inlet where ships used to call – and now it’s half a mile or more away from the sea. My point is that there must be many places where the rise in sea level is insignificant compared to the change in the elevation of the land for all manner of reasons.

  154. From Mars, Peru

    The updated (late september 2010) AVISO data show a spike, to record levels of the sea level, just as did last year:

    That link takes us to a pretty map indicating the last update was in March 2010.

    Digging around that site, however, I found this:

    http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/en/news/ocean-indicators/mean-sea-level/products-images/index.html

    Some spike. And the La Nina only set in about mid-year last year. It’s only now making itself apparent worldwide.

  155. Hmm…

    That web site seems to go to a default page for some reason.

    This is what I had in mind.

    As I said, some spike.

    (To the Mod: Thanks for fixing my ham-handed blockquote….again. :))

    [De nada. ~dbs]

  156. “This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”
    ~Obama
    Guess that means we should be thanking Obama now, right? /sarc

  157. John M says:
    January 19, 2011 at 3:00 pm

    “That link takes us to a pretty map indicating the last update was in March 2010.”

    If you download the data using the “Download the data (ASCII)” button, you find as the last data point:

    “2010.821157: 5.767729e-02″

    The month in question can be calculated as follows:

    .82*12= 9.84 ,

    meaning that this data correponds to late September(9) 2010

    In late september 2010 the La Niña was near its bottom (between October and November 2010). The sea level, at least until late September 2010, has no responded (in the AVISO data) to the 2010-2011 La Niña as did with the 2007-2008 La Niña, when there was a (temporary) drop in sea level.

  158. The September 2010 spike is evident in the graph that includes the seasonal signal:

    The spike is the combination of the trend plus the seasonal spike of late Northern Summer. What is surprising is that the last data points are well above the maximum reached last year. In late 2007, the sea level barely reached the level seen in late 2006, because of La Niña.

    The current La Niña should have caused the same effect, but for some reason, it hasn’t.

    Maybe is just an error in the preliminary data, maybe the ocean in late 2010 is behaving in a different way than in 2007.

  159. The September 2010 spike is evident in the graph that includes the seasonal signal:

    Ahhh. So now we’re supposed to use data that include seasonal signals to determine climatic trends. Thanks for the tip. I’ll have to remember that…er….trick.

  160. I just went the source of the data linked at the top of the article and looked at the altimeter calibration against tide guages.

    http://sealevel.colorado.edu/calibration.php

    There’s a significant swing in 2009-2010 . Has the Jason satellite has taken a bump or has someon adjusted the tide gauges ?

    The scale of this adjustment seems “unprecedented” in the 30 years of the record.

  161. John M says:
    January 20, 2011 at 3:31 pm

    “Ahhh. So now we’re supposed to use data that include seasonal signals to determine climatic trends. Thanks for the tip. I’ll have to remember that…er….trick”

    Did you even read what I said after the link?

    “The spike is the combination of the trend plus the seasonal spike of late Northern Summer. What is surprising is that the last data points are well above the maximum reached last year. In late 2007, the sea level barely reached the level seen in late 2006, because of La Niña.

    The current La Niña should have caused the same effect, but for some reason, it hasn’t.”

    The seasonal signal has no effect in the trend. Since this WUWT post is NOT about trends, but about a possible drop in sea level last year (that is, in late 2010), I showed a link to AVISO showing that there is a spike, not a drop, entirely consistent with the sea level rise trend of 3.2 mm/yr (plus the seasonal signal, of course).

    My point is that, unlike in 2007-2008, the sea level is not dropping, quite the opposite!

    Do you get it?

  162. Mars Man,

    Yes, I do get it. You searched far and wide to find one highly smoothed graph with 2 or 3 magic points that you think constitute a “spike”. It’s sort of like dendrochronology where 2 or 3 magic trees can make a hockey stick.

    Congratulations, you found the needle in the haystack.

    For those more interested in the haystack.

    http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html

  163. John M says:
    January 22, 2011 at 1:02 pm

    “Mars Man [why Mars?, I am from Peru],

    Yes, I do get it. You searched far and wide to find one highly smoothed graph with 2 or 3 magic points that you think constitute a “spike”.”

    Evidently you don’t get it. This post was called “Sea level may drop in 2010″. So far, it was not the case. AVISO shows a spike instead of a drop (it is a small spike, but still a spike, not a drop).

    “It’s sort of like dendrochronology where 2 or 3 magic trees can make a hockey stick.”

    Again mocking dendrocronologists? If you don’t like tree rings, look at the ice core data. You will still find a hockey stick, unless you “hide the incline” chopping off the last 100 years of warming as Don Easterbrook done in a recent post on WUWT.

    “Congratulations, you found the needle in the haystack.”

    That needle (AVISO) is the most updated dataset. When CSIRO and the University of Colorado update their data (or possibly AVISO adjust downward the last data points) we will see how sea level behave in those datasets to compare.

    Theoretically, there should be a drop in 2010 given the strong La Niña. So far there are no hints of a drop, but quite the opposite, in AVISO data.

  164. Why Mars? Only because I found myself dancing around the maypole with someone named “from mars” a while back. Similar writing style, similar line of argument.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/19/associated-press-gone-wild-2010-disaster-article-is-unadulterated-trash/#comment-554946

    If you say that’s not you, I’ll stop using it.

    In the meantime, you can continue to use your preferred data.

    Whether or not sea levels fall this year is not my argument anyway. You just caught my attention with that “spike” thing. It is however clear that there are no signs of the sea level trend accelerating.

    And ice cores don’t absolve dendrochronologists manufacturing hockey sticks form tree rings.

  165. John M:

    It is true, I put sometime ago “from mars”, then I decided that is better to put my accurate (Earthly) position. Compliments for your intuition, but please call me “from Peru”.

    Now use your ingood intuition to note that I used the AVISO data not because I liked it (I used to look at CSIRO data, until someone give me a link to AVISO) but because it is to date the most updated dataset. I am, and I suppose you also, waiting for the updates on CSIRO and the University of Colorado.

    You said:

    “Whether or not sea levels fall this year is not my argument anyway.”

    But is the argument of this WUWT post.

    ” You just caught my attention with that “spike” thing.”

    Because in the most updated data (AVISO) there IS a spike.

    “It is however clear that there are no signs of the sea level trend accelerating.”

    I do not suggest that sea level rise is accelerating. I just supported with actual data the fact that sea level rise is not slowing, but continuing at a near constant rate (with some ups and downs due mainly to ENSO).

    “And ice cores don’t absolve dendrochronologists manufacturing hockey sticks form tree rings”

    Please give me a link to a study that shows that the tree-ring paleoclimate proxies studies are flawed. And if they are flawed, why ice core data agrees with tree ring reconstructions?

  166. “Please give me a link to a study that shows that the tree-ring paleoclimate proxies studies are flawed. And if they are flawed, why ice core data agrees with tree ring reconstructions?”

    How many links do you want? I could just point you to http://climateaudit.org and let you fend for yourself, but this pretty much nails the granddaddy of them all.

    http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf

    And before you start with the revisionist history, make sure you explain this:

    CHAIRMAN BARTON. I understand that. It looks like my time is expired, so I want to ask one more question. Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman’s report?
    DR. NORTH. No, we don’t. We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report. But again, just because the claims are made, doesn’t mean they are false.

    http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_house_hearings&docid=f:31362.wais

    You realize of course that your last sentence is a logical fallacy. Just because the pyramids are alligned with the stars doesn’t mean they were put there by ancient astronauts. And if you want to find a fig leaf in the last sentence in the North quote above, you can hardly claim that using the wrong method leads to higher confidence in the study.

    But as long as you keep mentioning it, please show me an ice core study that looks like this.

    It is after all the “perfect” shape of this hockey stick that made it the darling of the global warming community. The various subsequent “spaghetti charts” hardly support this “perfect” shape.

  167. John M says:

    “But as long as you keep mentioning it, please show me an ice core study that looks like this.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hockey_stick_chart_ipcc_large.jpg

    Want an ice core that makes a hockey stick?

    See the GISP2 ice core data:

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/metadata/noaa-icecore-2475.html

    Plot the result. You found something like this:

    But the GISP2 ice core data ends in 1905. That’s 105 year ago!

    What has happened in all those years?

    Well a nice graph is here:

    http://www.meltfactor.org/blog/

    In the graph is clear that Greenland warmed significantly between the 1910s and the 1930s, then cooled between the 1930s and the 1990s and finally warmed a lot after 1995, until the record-smashing 2010.

    The decade 2001-2010, the warmest on record in Greenland looks like this:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2010&month_last=12&sat=4&sst=1&type=anoms&mean_gen=0112&year1=2001&year2=2010&base1=1900&base2=1905&radius=250&pol=reg

    Between 2ºC and 4 ºC of warming since the decade 1900-1910!

    The hockey stick emerges when you combine the ice core data with the instrumental record.

    We are back to levels seen in the Holocene Thermal Maximum (HTM) and the Minoan Warming Period, and between 1ºC and 3ºC warmer than the Medieval Warm Period!

  168. None of those are global or even hemisphere-wide many of them are only for a couple of hundred years.

    The tricky dendrochronology we’re talking about, which I guess I missed with regard to your original diversion with ice cores, involves global or hemispheric trends on the order of 1000 years.

    I guess that makes your original claims about ice cores = tree rings even more of a fallacy.

  169. “We are back to levels seen in the Holocene Thermal Maximum (HTM) and the Minoan Warming Period, and between 1ºC and 3ºC warmer than the Medieval Warm Period!”

    Absolutely ridiculous.

  170. Smokey says:
    January 24, 2011 at 4:55 pm

    ““We are back to levels seen in the Holocene Thermal Maximum (HTM) and the Minoan Warming Period, and between 1ºC and 3ºC warmer than the Medieval Warm Period!”

    Absolutely ridiculous.”

    As usual, you are hiding the incline. Your timeseries ends in 1905, 105 years ago!

    See what has happened in all those years in Greenland:

    http://www.meltfactor.org/blog/?p=294

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2010&month_last=12&sat=4&sst=1&type=anoms&mean_gen=0112&year1=2001&year2=2010&base1=1900&base2=1910&radius=250&pol=reg

  171. From Mars,

    You are to science as astrology is to astronomy, living in the illusory dream world of your fevered imagination.

    105 years ago the global temperature was only 0.7° below today’s temperature, making the MWP still much warmer than today.

    The chart I posted, based on real data published in a peer reviewed journal, says it all. Run along back to your realclimate echo chamber, where they believe your ridiculous globaloney.

  172. Smokey says:
    January 25, 2011 at 9:39 am

    “From Mars,

    You are to science as astrology is to astronomy, living in the illusory dream world of your fevered imagination.”

    What a perfect decription of yourself, as usual. Psychological projection at work!

    “105 years ago the global temperature was only 0.7° below today’s temperature, making the MWP still much warmer than today.”

    We are talking about GREENLAND. GREENLAND!

    Greenland is not the whole planet Earth. There any warming and cooling that happens on Earth is AMPLIFICATED. The Global average temperature anomalies are measured in tenths of a degree, but in the ARCTIC (where GREENLAND is) the temperature anomalies are measured in full degree units. See this MAPS and then comment:

    Anomalies with respect to 1951-1980

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2010&month_last=12&sat=4&sst=1&type=anoms&mean_gen=0112&year1=2001&year2=2010&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=reg

    Anomalies with respect to 1900-1910:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2010&month_last=12&sat=4&sst=1&type=anoms&mean_gen=0112&year1=2001&year2=2010&base1=1900&base2=1910&radius=1200&pol=reg

    Please note that while GLOBAL temperatures in 2001-2010 are 0.77ºC warmer than the 1900-1910 average, ARCTIC temperatures (see the Greenland area) are between 2ºC and 4ºC warmer than the 1900-1910 average

    “The chart I posted, based on real data published in a peer reviewed journal, says it all.”

    It is a good chart, but do NOT show modern global warming because it ends 105 years ago. You are misrepresenting the data used in that chart, chopping off the last 105 years of warming! (that years are found in the instrumental temperature data)

    “Run along back to your realclimate echo chamber, where they believe your ridiculous globaloney.”

    Mr Smokey, you are the one that make ridiculous claims. I just posted what the DATA show, you are comparing apples (Greenland temperatures) with oranges (global temperatures).

  173. Mars says:

    “Greenland is not the whole planet Earth. There any warming and cooling that happens on Earth is AMPLIFICATED.”

    Is ‘amplificated’ a realclimate word? Is the warming robustly amplificated?

    Anyway, nothing refutes the graph I posted. So now you want to take the position that Greenland is only in one hemisphere? OK, here’s Vostok. Now we have both hemispheres covered.

    I see you’re an acolyte of Michael Mann and his debunked Hokey Stick chart, where the handle of the stick is straight, until recently when it curves up so scarily. Too bad for you the Hokey Stick has been thoroughly debunked. Believe in it if you like, but it’s just not true. Even Mann grudgingly admits it now. [Even though he mumbles when he has to say the words.]

    Although it’s hidden by the instrumental data, Mann ’08 is the only one showing a huge temperature spike in recent decades — which goes away if you drop the upside-down tiljander sediment proxies [!!] and the stripbark trees. That paper, with its upside-down proxy [which Mann knew about before he published] shows the rampant corruption in the climate peer review industry.

    And when you say, “You are misrepresenting the data used in that chart, chopping off the last 105 years of warming!”, I’d like you to find me some recent ice cores. See, as I’ve explained to you before, it takes time for the snow cover to compact into ice.

    And regarding your tenths of a degree global temperature record, try reading the recent WUWT article on the metrology of thermometers. There is no way anyone can reliably determine temperatures to within one degree C — much less a tenth of a degree.

    I don’t know why I waste my time. [I guess for the same reason I like to pull the wings off flies.☺] Because the null hypothesis completely debunks the CO2=CAGW conjecture. Despite all the red-faced arm waving climate alarmism, nothing out of the ordinary is happening. Nothing. It’s natural variability in action, and Mother Gaia is laughing at the alarmist crowd.

  174. Smokey:

    I am not talking about the proxies used by Mann. I am talking about temperatures in Greenland, that have warmed between 2ºC and 4ºC in the last century, are you denying that?

    Are you denying the results of these meteorological stations?

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/findstation.py?datatype=gistemp&data_set=1&name=&world_map.x=290&world_map.y=41

    Note that the temperature variations showed there are not in the order of tenths of a degree, are in the order of several degrees.

    Your question:

    “Is ‘amplificated’ a realclimate word? ”

    Nope. It the english word that describes what is happening in the Arctic.

    “Is the warming robustly amplificated?”

    I do not know what you mean by “robust”, but certainly it is clear from the temperature measurements that any climatic change in the planet, either warming or cooling, occurs in the Arctic at a rate many times bigger: in the last 100 years the warming was 0.7ºC in the globe, 3ºC in Greenland. Or are you perhaps blinded?

    Finally you show your refusal to think by saying:

    “And when you say, “You are misrepresenting the data used in that chart, chopping off the last 105 years of warming!”, I’d like you to find me some recent ice cores. See, as I’ve explained to you before, it takes time for the snow cover to compact into ice.”

    Yes the ice has not yet compacted, but you have actual temperature measurements fro weather stations. Just check the weather station data that I linked above. It is such a difficult concept to undestand?

    If you can’t, then really I am wasting my time with you.

  175. Martian from Peru,

    Since it’s been shown recently that no thermometer used by the USHCN is calibrated, and that the error tolerance is 2° – 4° or more on a properly calibrated thermometer, and furthermore, the fact that all “adjustments” are either upward, or long past “adjustments” are lower, making the rise look scarier, you’ll understand if I question the credibility of organizations that are financially rewarded, and their corrupted scientists given job security, for showing more global warming – whether it’s real or not.

    Then you complain because Greenland is only one region; a capricious argument that shifts with the winds. We’re talking about global temperatures, not regional. And I reject the claim that Grenland is warming as a result of AGW, unless you can provide verifiable evidence that all locations above the Arctic circle are warming as much. They’re not, which debunks your ‘amplificated’ conjecture.

    As Bob Diaz says in a current WUWT thread: “Weather is NOT climate, except when someone wants to use it to prove that CO2 Climate Change is real.”

    I’ve shown that the null hypothesis remains unfalsified, which is a falsification of the alternative CO2=CAGW hypothesis. And I’ve shown that the climate peer review process is hopelessly corrupt; it hand-waved through Mann’s ’08 paper that knowingly used an upside-down proxy in order to get a hockey stick shaped graph [the Tiljander sediment proxy].

    Thus, the CO2=CAGW hypothesis has been reduced from a hypothesis to a mere conjecture; an opinion. Score another win for scientific skepticism.

  176. Smokey says:
    January 25, 2011 at 6:33 pm

    “Martian from Peru,

    Since it’s been shown recently that no thermometer used by the USHCN is calibrated, and that the error tolerance is 2° – 4° or more on a properly calibrated thermometer, and furthermore, the fact that all “adjustments” are either upward, or long past “adjustments” are lower, making the rise look scarier, you’ll understand if I question the credibility of organizations that are financially rewarded, and their corrupted scientists given job security, for showing more global warming – whether it’s real or not.”

    So for you in the world does not exist a single temperature record that is trustworthy, because “the error tolerance is 2° – 4° or more on a properly calibrated thermometer” , that is, nobody has any idea of the actual temperature of any place. How then the weather reports show temperature readings with a precision of at least a degree?

    “Then you complain because Greenland is only one region; a capricious argument that shifts with the winds. We’re talking about global temperatures, not regional.”

    Nope. The GISP2 ice core is in Greenland, so we are talking about temperatures there.

    “And I reject the claim that Grenland is warming as a result of AGW, unless you can provide verifiable evidence that all locations above the Arctic circle are warming as much.”

    See here:

    Temperature anomaly (2001-2010)

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2010&month_last=12&sat=4&sst=1&type=anoms&mean_gen=0112&year1=2001&year2=2010&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=reg

    Every location in the Arctic area that has a weather station show warming greater than the global average.

    For 2006-2010, the Arctic temperatures are even higher than for 2001-2010:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2010&month_last=12&sat=4&sst=1&type=anoms&mean_gen=0112&year1=2006&year2=2010&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=reg

    Do you see it, or are you blinded?

    “They’re not, which debunks your ‘amplificated’ conjecture.”

    Arctic amplification is NOT a conjecture, it is a actual observation.

    “I’ve shown that the null hypothesis remains unfalsified, which is a falsification of the alternative CO2=CAGW hypothesis.”

    Any respectable hypothesis must be explicitly formulated. You have not shown what that “null hypothesis” is nor any evidence in favour of whatever it is. What is your “null hypothesis” you talk about so much?

  177. Smokey:

    You said before:

    “And I reject the claim that Grenland is warming as a result of AGW, unless you can provide verifiable evidence that all locations above the Arctic circle are warming as much. They’re not, which debunks your ‘amplificated’ conjecture.”

    If you don’t trust thermometers, that show widespread warming in the Arctic, maybe at least you trust RSS satellite measured temperatures:

    http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html

    See the red areas (trend: 0.3 to 0.5 ºC/decade) over the Northern Latitudes, that show a warming a a rate equal to several times the global trend of 0.16ºC/decade as measured by RSS.

    This confirms Arctic amplification as observed by meteorological stations. Arctic amplification is a fact we know by observation. Calling it a “conjecture” is nonsense.

  178. From Mars,

    It is a waste of time trying to educate someone who suffers from cognitive dissonance, and who cherry-picks regions of the globe. Hey, I can chery-pick, too: click

    See? Global temperature is falling.

    Mars says: “What is your “null hypothesis” you talk about so much?”

    Anyone who needs to ask that question will never understand the concept — which has been explained many times here on WUWT over the past couple of years. There have even been articles about it in 2011. I’m through trying to explain the scientific method to a true believer, who thinks that normal temperature fluctuations are some sort of catastrophic runaway global warming crisis. They’re not. But then you don’t even understand the elementary concept of the climate null hypothesis.

    The atmosphere and oceans are behaving normally. Nothing that is happening is outside of historical norms. But when someone tries to point out that indisputable fact to you, they get this response. Cognitive dissonance, and it’s rarely curable. Your On/Off switch has been wired around, and you can’t shut off your unreasonable fear of CAGW.

    Finally, you’re getting way off topic. This article is about the sea level dropping.

    I’m moving on to the current WUWT page. You get the last word here, so chatter away off-topic with your realclimate globaloney. I’m tired of matching wits with an unarmed person. Say Hi to the folks on Mars for me, OK? Thanks.☺

  179. From Mars,

    “It is a waste of time trying to educate someone who suffers from cognitive dissonance, and who cherry-picks regions of the globe. Hey, I can chery-pick, too: click

    See? Global temperature is falling”

    Compliments! You found the other side of Greenhouse warming, the side that neither the sun nor ocean cycles can explain: STRATOSPHERIC COOLING!

    “Anyone who needs to ask that question will never understand the concept — I’m through trying to explain the scientific method to a true believer,(…) But then you don’t even understand the elementary concept of the climate null hypothesis.”

    You are not explaining anything, you are showing only half truths, turning evidence for global warming into evidence against (such as tratospheric cooling), and talking about a “null hypothesis” without saying what your null hypothesis is, and when asked for that, you refuse to answer.

    I have not seen any paper on climate science mentioning a “null hypothesis”. As far as I know, a null hypothesis is a statement that there is no actual relationship between variables, so it is a statistical concept. So, what are your variables? What do you mean when you say “climate null hypothesis”?

    Talking about the scientific method, it do not consist on half truths (such as your mutilated graphs) or personal attacks (like the ones you sistematically do against me. This only show that you have no arguments). It is about theories, hypothesis and observations that could support or challenge them.

    The best way to follow science is to read and discuss scientific papers. And unlike you, I posted links to data and scientific papers. If you were to really follow the scientific method, we could be talking about the data, methods and conclusions in those scientific papers.

    This post was about an alleged “drop” in sea level. I posted a link to the most up to date dataset, AVISO, that show that the opposite is true. I am still waiting the updates of CSIRO and the University of Colorado to see if the AVISO results are confirmed or not.

    Anyway, the rates of sea level rise since the satellite altimetry began are so far following the worst case scenario of the IPCC, see this paper:

    Recent Climate Observations Compared to Projections

    http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Nature/rahmstorf_etal_science_2007.pdf

    Here is is found:

    “The satellite data show a linear trend of 3.3 ± 0.4 mm/year (1993–2006) and the tide gauge reconstruction trend is slightly less, whereas the IPCC projected a best-estimate rise of less than 2 mm/year. Sea level closely follows the upper gray dashed line, the upper limit referred to by IPCC as “including land-ice uncertainty.”

    Now, what is your “null hypothesis” about sea level rise, and how it compares with observations?

Comments are closed.