The university of Colorado has recently updated their sea level graph from the TOPEX satellite data. The 60 day smoothed trend is still stalled and shows no rise over what was seen since the peak in mid 2010:
Data
Raw data (ASCII) | PDF | EPS
Here’s the same data with season variation retained, but the really interesting data is from ENVISAT, which shows no upward trend:
(Graph from Steve Goddard). Envisat data here: ftp://ftp.aviso.oceanobs.com/
Sea level is lower than eight years ago, and according to the graph above just passed the lowest annual peak in the Envisat record.
It’s damned inconvenient.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
First the missing increase in temperatures over the last 15 years, then the missing ocean heat, now the missing sea level rise…what’s next? This has to be attributable to interference by aliens…there’s just no other logical explanation….
Just wait, almost there….. see it is rising (nothing a tweek of the numbers can’t handle)
So why are Envisat disagreeing with Jason-1 and Jason-2 about ocean levels?
The first graph above shows why I hate these silly “Trend lines” as if they mean something.
My calibrated eyeball sees a trendline starting at about -15 at 1992 going up to about +40 in 2006, and then breaking over to a lower slope after that.
Forget the black line; there’s a squiggly blue line that is a better trend line in my view.
Why “they” spend a lot of taxpayer money getting actual data, and then throw it all away for some y = mx + c thing is beyond me.
I’m sure some canned recipe produced the black line, so I’m not criticising whoever ran the numbers through that mill. I just object to ascribing any meaning whatsoever to the black line.
Curious. If you go here:
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/en/news/ocean-indicators/mean-sea-level/products-images/index.html
And choose “Envisat” plus “time serie”, you get a very different picture
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/images/news/indic/msl/MSL_Serie_EN_Global_IB_RWT_GIA_Adjust.png
Typo! 60 Month should be 60 DAY smoothing.
DaveE.
The real danger is shrapnel from imploding warmist heads. And the longer it’s delayed, the more violent will be the detonations! Beware! Keep your distance, and avoid all involvement with associated secondary explosives like renewables and sustainable whatevers.
You have been warned!
Obviously this is one election promise Obama is keeping. The waters are receding on his command.
@plazaeme,
That’s the adjusted. The Envisat picture in the article is the unadjusted.
The decease after 2010 is “unprecedented” in the past 19 years for amount and duration. Obviously we may be headed toward another Ice Age. We’re doomed, we’re all going to freeze to death.
Sorry, couldn’t resist!
Bill
Geroge E Smith said: “…My calibrated eyeball sees a trendline starting at about -15 at 1992 going up to about +40 in 2006, and then breaking over to a lower slope after that.”
Funy how THIS hockey stick is unseen by some.
If the huge amount of missing heat that the earth is supposedly accumulating is going into the oceans, shouldn’t the oceans be rising substantially? It seems to me that the missing heat is quite clearly NOT going into the oceans. TIme for the warmists to come up with a new hand-waving theory…. maybe something like water at 39F is the most dense, so what is happening is that all of the ocean water at 34F has been warming lately due to the sinking warm water laden with the missing heat resulting in warming the 34F water up to 39F which explains why there is more heat in the ocean but yet the sea level is falling. There…. problem fixed for them.
One line summary: if heat is supposedly stored in the deep ocean, then why is sea level declining instead of increasing, which should happen if more heat is in the ocean?
Analysis: We keep hearing from some on the “AGW is dooming us” group that the increased warmth is hidden in the oceans. Well, it wasn’t in the top 700 meters, so it must be even deeper, people like Trenberth, K are wont to say.
But….if the deep ocean is storing warmth, then thermal expansion should make the sea level rise more quickly. After all, most of the IPCC’s sea level rise projections are due to thermal expansion of a slightly warmer ocean, less due to melting of ice caps and glaciers, at least for the rest of this century.
That is where these graphs come in handy. If there is thermal expanion, if the oceans are getting warmer, it should show up in rising sea levels. But it appears that sea levels have been falling for either 18 months (U Colo) or two years (Envisat and unadjusted data). That seems to say that oceans may be getting cooler, not warmer.
Is there any argument against this interpretation? Steve Mosher, can you think of one? Anybody?
From the first graph, what happened in 2011 is the inverse of what happened in 1998. Otherwise looks like an upward trend to this linear thinker.
OK. Temperatures are not rising. Sea levels are not rising. The Great Barrier Reef is not dying. The oceans are not becoming ‘more acidic’. Storms are not increasing in frequency or severity.
What else were we supposed to be terrified about?
Ocean water is now hiding someplace with ocean heat.
Clearly this is a calibration error.
Envisat does have an overall upward trend. It is a stunning 3.2 cm/century!
Adjusted = “we fed it through the models to inject our expectation into the output”
Right?
The net warming must have ceased. That would influence both the expansion of ocean water and the melting of glaciers.
plazaeme says:
February 14, 2012 at 1:21 pm
Curious. If you go here:
And choose “Envisat” plus “time serie”, you get a very different picture
plazaeme, you have to work through and click away all adjustments then you get the same
Did you all miss the little notation in the graphs that say 3.1 mm/yr? The 20 year trend line is clearly increasing. Talk about missing the forest because of a cherry tree!
..and a travesty.
I see the horrifying trend of 60 mm in 20 years and calculate that as I live some 18 m above local sea level I will have to raise my house in some 6000 years – who the hell is gonna pay for this ?
But what is sea level supposed to be? Here in the UK we use Newlyn in Cornwall, the problem with that being is Newlyn land is sinking.
I guess it is supposed to mean the amount of H2O in fluid form on the planet at any one time but how do you measure that?