From his June 4, 2008 speech on winning the Democratic primaries:
“This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow, and our planet began to heal.”
Here’s the proof: Ten year running mean sea level rise from satellite altimetry.
Figure 1. Decadal (overlapping) rates for sea level rise as determined from the satellite sea level rise observations, 1993-2011 (data available from http://sealevel.colorado.edu/).
h/t to Dr. Pat Michaels
UPDATE: for the whiners about “cherry picking” here’s a graph with data through 2012, not much difference in the rate.
Well they gave him a Nobel before he became the Messiah – now he can walk on water anyway!
Since the sea level rise peaked in 2005 and the decrease started in 2006, the POTUS was not being clairvoyant, he was just looking at a data trend 3 years running.
Kurt in Switzerland
The POTUS was not being clairvoyant, he was just being himself: a megalomaniac.
And he did that without even doing anything about CO2! How’s that for progressivism!
Why would you use that graphic instead of the one at the link? Seems like less information. And why not include 2003-2012? If you’re just making a joke that’s fine, but people take this website seriously, and a lot of them are bad enough at graphs without giving them the fancy version 😛
There’s no need to update my Sea Level infographic made in 2010, for Pinocchio’s song remains the same as new tide gauge data remains omitted on NASA’s climate page about sea level:
http://i.imgbox.com/acjDjgBA.jpg
oh my Lord…..the bottom of the ocean is sinking faster than we thought
He had no knowledge of any of it.. Its just over zealous little snow flakes at the north and south poles.. really..
Ha! His perfect record is now ruined. He actually got something right. LOL!
Only a 44% decline in sea level rise rate over 6 years (3.9 to 2.2)
i.e. 7%/year decline in rise rate from 2001 to 2006.
Obviously a “negative acceleration”!
If I am reading that graph right the “rise of the oceans began to slow” in 2000.
Bush’s fault.
Does not the geological record tell us that sea level peaks out just before the start of next glaciation period?
You mean the sea isn’t going to rise 5 feet by 2100, like the Scientific American article claimed just today?
Ooh, the irony! It burns! 🙂
Using the average rate for the past 20 years (even though the average rate is declining), we get a sea level rise of 14 inches per century. This is about double the rate of a broad sample of tide gauges, but still is far below apocalyptic predictions of Gore, Hanson, and a raft – stranded high and dry – of others. In the San Francisco Bay Area an increase of five feet is predicted, yet the oldest tide gauge record in the Western Hemisphere, San Francisco, has been plugging along at an eight inches per century rate since 1854. I feel like the guy at his computer whose wife asked him to check and see what the weather was like, and he said “Look out the window.” It’s time the Bay Area prognosticators looked at the Bay. Are they in for a surprise.
Like a lot of the stuff on this website, but agree with Ryan the 10 year overlapping data of rate of change of sea levels, lacking the last couple of years is cherry picking and obfuscation. The data at the link this comes from is much more informative and shows a pretty linear rise that had a brief hiatus for a year in 2011.
You know what this means;
it’s worse than we thought, the ocean expansion sink is filled up and they can’t expand anymore.
Trenberth’s missing heat doesn’t seem to be doing much in the way of thermal expansion.
“now he can walk on water anyway!”
I’ll lend him some concrete gym shoes. 🙂
Latitude says: May 28, 2013 at 2:47 pm
oh my Lord…..the bottom of the ocean is sinking faster than we thought
Meant in jest, I’m sure, but the good folks at C.U. actually believe that and have included it in their chart. It’s that Glacial Isostatic Adjustment “GIA corrected” term under the chart legend. It amounts to 0.3 mm/yr added to the rate of rise, and accounts for their belief that the the balance between rising land and deepening ocean after the melting of the ice age glaciers amounts to that much per year. It affects sea volume, however, not sea level, and thus muddies up the usefulness of the data.
The “inverse barometer applied” adjustment also affects the chart in some unspecified manner. Once upon a time, before the GIA was invented, C.U. had charts available with and without the inverse baro and seasonal signal adjustments.
The GIA explanation was available on the front page, and now it is no longer referenced. It’s in their FAQ page, however.
This is kinda worrying. I thought that sea-level fell just before a Tsunami came!
Is it really worse than we thought and all the bad things said about CO2 (Source: numberwatch.co.uk) are actually true?
Shouldn’t someone give Laureate Gore (call me Al) a ring so he can head for the hills and safety?
Increased Carbon Dioxide has made the Sponges in the ocean grow at an accelerated rate, and they are soaking up all of the extra water!
(runs away)
Latitude: The bottoms of the oceans are sinking and the land is rising. All at the same time. Imagine that ! People who think there will ever be a significant rise in oceans levels are seriously deluded.
@James Padgett says:
May 28, 2013 at 3:34 pm
“Trenberth’s missing heat doesn’t seem to be doing much in the way of thermal expansion”
James, Thermal expansion is yesterday’s Physics.
You’re, clearly, not a climate-scientist with a background in Post-Normal Fizzicks or you’d be fully aware that dihydrogen-monoxide at depths beyond 700m or so is teleconnected , in such a way to the atmosphere, so that it contracts as it absorbs energy and therefore sinks via convection!
Maybe you’re not totally convinced by my reasoning but the evidence is clear.
We must be warming because the models tell us that this is happening.
That we don’t observe this warming is a travesty.
We can’t think of why ths is happening.
Ergo, it must be Mann-made and the blame clearly lies with CO2!
I rest my case!
Any rise in sea level rise over the last few centuries has been caused by Dutch Dykes. Naturally, the Netherlands should be flooded now, spreading the oceans over a larger area and lowering sea level. Dutch Dykes I tell ya.
Wow. The man might actually be the Semichrist after all.
We are the people we’ve been waiting for.
Didn’t Jimmy Buffet have a lyric like that?
Awhile ago, I downloaded all the annual Tide Gauge data in Permanent Mean Sea Level Service database. There is 31,000 individual annual measurements in the database although there would be some Gauges moving in and out of the database so this is just the average change of all Gauges in the database.
I’ve got the Tide Gauges showing 1.41 mms/year since 1980. One should probably add 0.3 mms/year to that since GPS indicates the land at (most of) the Tide Guages is rising at 0.3 mms/year versus the Geoid (the average glacial isostatic rebound which is still ocurring).
http://s2.postimg.org/xcp9tsz6x/Sea_Level_Measurements_PMSL_1930_1980_2009.png
And this chart compares the average of all Tide Gauges in the PMSL database to other sea level estimates produced through the satellites and other scientists. I’m going with the Tide Gauges versus the adjustments done with the satellites.
http://s8.postimg.org/9ysbkpw51/All_Sea_Level_Measurements_1960_2013.png
Oh good grief. First it was temperatures with decades turning into 10 year periods, now this graph listing the 10 year periods on the X-axis. Oh well, I suppose it makes it clear exactly how the “10 year smoothing” is being done.
I understand the smoothing, I’m not convinced the data in bar chart above reflects the data at the CU link though. It looks to me as though the bar heights should be much more similar.
I’m not sure about this. The wise men have told us that sea level rise will increase from 3 mm/yr to ~22 mm/yr. The Virginia coast line will be destroyed by at least 1′ of sea level rise in the next 30 years.
How to be a climate skeptic: remember the predictions for more than two weeks.
Should we just call him “King Canute” now? 🙂
The English have an appropriate term to describe people like POTUS or Prince Charles: Pompous Git!
It is obvious why the bar graph stops at 2011. The data on the CU website shows a sharp increase afterwards. This is absolutely Cherry Picking.
Here’s the current graph from CU Sea Level Research Group –
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2013_rel4/sl_ns_global.png
May I humbly point out that I posted this for funsies? If we lose our sense of humor, we become like Mikey Mann.
The president’s statement was as bad as Warmistas adopting “climate change” as their password–something that’s completely natural and expected. And yet they want everybody to think it’s a problem.
Completely absurd.
Pat Michaels says:
May 28, 2013 at 5:49 pm
We’re having fun bashing baseless comments, many that have sounded exactly like Mikey Mann.
Thanks for the fun; our senses of humor have been exercised.
I remember reading (in comments on this website) that about 1mm pa is caused by water being pumped out of the terrestrial water table and ending up in the ocean, in which case the part from melting ice is even lower?.
That’s funny, Michel’s graph shows a rate of well over 3.5 mm/yr of sea level rise for 2004 but if you check out what Colorado University’s Sea Level Research Group said at the time – and you can do this with the Internet Archive Way Back Machine,
http://web.archive.org/web/20040215105250/http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
It shows that sea level rise was only 2.8 mm/yr.
How can that be?
Fin said: “[I] agree with Ryan the 10 year overlapping data of rate of change of sea levels, lacking the last couple of years is cherry picking and obfuscation. “
I also agree – this data is cherry-picked. From the Colorado.edu website data you can already calculate a further point for 2003-2012 which shows an uptick back to the 2001-2010 level. The raw GMSL time series graph also shows an increase rate of rise (reversing out the 0.3mm GIA) from 2011 to 2013, from which it is very likely that the uptick/increase in the plotted decadal rates will be maintained for at least 2 more years. So 2002-2011 was probably just the low point in the decadal rates, which will likely increase again in each of the 3 following years.
The shape of the chart changes with every recalibration. It appears that the data is periodically calibrated against the average SLR gradient of a subset of global tide gauges.
Kurt in Switzerland:
2005? Why doesn’t he just blame GWB?
Mark Bofill says:
May 28, 2013 at 4:57 pm
Wow. The man might actually be the Semichrist after all.
No, he is a god – just ask him.
Obama does not care about the environment or humans. He is a narcissistic maniac who is only interested in power. He does not care whether he gains power by doing good or evil. So long as he gets power. He has decided to take the easy route, he gets his power from doing evil. But who really has the power? Obama or his masters? In reality Obama has no power at all, he only has the power to obey his masters. That is what happens when you sell your soul. Obama is tool, nothing more. He will pass and be replaced. He is so utterly replaceable.
Bill Illis says: May 28, 2013 at 5:13 pm
“….I’ve got the Tide Gauges showing 1.41 mms/year since 1980. One should probably add 0.3 mms/year to that since GPS indicates the land at (most of) the Tide Guages is rising at 0.3 mms/year versus the Geoid (the average glacial isostatic rebound which is still ocurring)….”
I’m interested to know why it is thought we should add the GIA 0.3 mm – surely it is nett sea level which interests us … unless we are expecting the iostatic move to suddenly cease.
In 100 years we are going to have to explain that the sea has risen 30 cm (assuming the satellites are accurate, and I for one have doubts), but that this includes 3 cm of ‘virtual’ sea rise.
Voting Democrat has always been an effective way to reduce CO2 emissions – as they trash the economy, CO2 emissions plummet.
Pumped out a lot of the aquifers…
Reasons for needing the new GRASP satellite (and my reasons for doubting the data)
“ …. Beckley et al. [2007] reprocessed all the TOPEX/Poseidon and Jason-1 SLR & DORIS data within the ITRF2005 reference frame, and found that the differences in the older CSR95 and ITRF2000 realizations and ITRF2005 caused differences of up to 1.5 mm/yr in regional rates of mean sea level rise….”
and
“….Thus, we assess that current state of the art reference frame errors are at roughly the mm/yr level, making observation of global signals of this size very difficult to detect and interpret.
This level of error contaminates climatological data records, such as measurements of sea level height from altimetry missions, and was appropriately recognized as a limiting error source by the NRC Decadal Report and by GGOS….”
(http://ilrs.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/GRASP_COSPAR_paper.pdf)
The estimated 0.7 mm/year of sea level rise (from several sources) from pumped aquifer water is a separate issue, bringing into question the accuracy of the ice melt and ocean heat content measures.
Yet John Boon just converted to Alarmism as he now declares the sea is rising faster in the mid-atlantic region. http://www.wavy.com/dpp/news/local_news/norfolk/sea-level-rising-fastest-in-norfolk
Wonder how AGW picked that spot out of the entire world’s coasts?
Physical measurements around Australia show very little change in sea levels. Cheers from still above water Sydney
Jeremy said @ May 28, 2013 at 5:35 pm
I resemble that remark!
I replicated the plot from the data. There is indeed a *slight* uptick at the end when you add in the most recent years. Indicating, of course, that it was indeed at the beginning of the Bush presidency that the rate began to slow and, contrary to claim, the up tick showed up just during the period when president Obama was giving his speech.
LOL!!! These sea rise numbers put a serious hole in CAGW theoretical assertion that the “lost heat” (lol) ended up buried deep in the oceans.
Most sea rise is attributed to thermal expansion. If the “lost heat” (lol) was mysteriously skipping atmospheric warming and going directly into the oceans, then there should be a corresponding acceleration in rising sea levels, which isn’t the case.
If, on the other hand, the sea rise level is decelerating in tandem with no global warming trend into the 17th year (despite 40% of all manmade CO2 emissions since 1750 being emitted over the last 16 years), a very strong case could be made that CAGW is officially kaputz.
Luuuuucy… You ‘ave some e’splaaaaaaining to doooo….
Am I the only one who remembers Lyndon Johnson’s 1964 campaign pledge to “de-salt the oceans”? He won the election, but the Viet Nam war took away his attention to removing this major pollutant from ocean water; like many campaign pledges, this one remains unfulfilled. It’s a travesty!
Well Pat, joke or not now you have 12+ comments from people who clearly think that either sea levels are falling or that sea level rise is rapidly falling. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. Or is it only you guys who get to read a conspiracy behind every graph?
Rate of draining quantity of water is reduced because source is drying. Heal? Does that mean level is lowering and water is going back to the places where it came from as underground water, moisture contents of soil, snow on mountains and poles?
The thing I do see rising is the chance of tropical activity in the BOC or Western Caribbean in the near term. Heads up folks,,,,,, Tis the season.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/global-mean-sea-level-time-series-seasonal-signals-removed
is still showing 2013_rel_3 (Edited: 2013-05-15), while http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/2013rel4-global-mean-sea-level-time-series-seasonal-signals-removed has 2013_rel_4 (Edited: 2013-05-19), of course. Both show 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/year.
And to think the University of Colorado can achieve this with a satellite with no terrestrial references! (Priceless)
Real ‘Cherry-Picking’ would be to use just the 2011-2013 data. That trend would be around 20 mm per year. 😉 Arrrrggggghhhhh! We Doooomed! !
If single site tide gauge records, any of them, formed a hockey stick, the covers of IPCC policy maker reports would get new covers, but alas, none of them, at all, do, shown in a single glance with reference, here:
http://oi53.tinypic.com/2i6os4y.jpg
Jason Miller says:
May 28, 2013 at 5:43 pm
It is obvious why the bar graph stops at 2011. The data on the CU website shows a sharp increase afterwards. This is absolutely Cherry Picking.
Of the most shameful kind…
Well that’a one thing that began in the previous administration that Obama probably wont be blaming Pres. Bush for.
Tell me WHY?
And I will share my understanding of this “global change” facet.
Michael Kerjman
So let me understand, the rate of fall in sea level rise is accelerating, and better than they thought, but worse for coral reef growth, but better for downtown Manhatten, but worse for the models?
Fun with correlations, with these decadal periods of sea level rise used elsewhere, courtesy of WoodForTrees:
PMOD composite TSI monthly average, rate of rise (slope of trend line), watch the Sun’s 1996 to 2005 (to 2006 by WFT notation) period bottom out exactly where the sea level rise turns around here. Good match between the charts by eyeball.
The AMO Index rate of rise is lagging the sea level rate of rise by about 5 to 6 years. Why is that?
Surprisingly, by HADSST3 the global sea surface temperatures rate of rise didn’t level off until five years later in 2001 to 2010. So SST rate of rise is also lagged, about the same as the AMO. Why? With sea level rise from thermal expansion, would you expect SST to better match sea level?
And the CO₂ measured at Mauna Loa still doesn’t care.
So the Sun matches, the AMO and SST lags, the CO₂ doesn’t care. Oh, and I checked the PDO Index, it’s a mess.
What do these correlations tell us?
It is worse than we thought – if we extrapolate the slowing of the sea level, eventually rise will reverse, and the seas will run out of water. Children will not know what trip to the seaside is…
/sarc off
SAMURAI says:
May 28, 2013 at 7:53 pm
LOL!!! These sea rise numbers put a serious hole in CAGW theoretical assertion that the “lost heat” (lol) ended up buried deep in the oceans.
Most sea rise is attributed to thermal expansion. If the “lost heat” (lol) was mysteriously skipping atmospheric warming and going directly into the oceans, then there should be a corresponding acceleration in rising sea levels, which isn’t the case.
***************************************************************************************************
Climate scientists are not as creative as astro physicists. When they lost their missing energy they came up with Dark Energy, missing matter becomes Dark Matter. SO do we make missing heat Dark Heat which disappears into the Dark Depths?
Ryan says:
May 28, 2013 at 8:19 pm
“Well Pat, joke or not now you have 12+ comments from people who clearly think that either sea levels are falling or that sea level rise is rapidly falling. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. Or is it only you guys who get to read a conspiracy behind every graph?”
It would be “mission accomplished” of the warmist kind only if now every newspaper on the planet would print it – like they did with Jon Cook’s shonky 97%.
Unfortunately, we don’t have that kind of stranglehold on the media.
As Jason Miller pointed out May 28, 2013 at 5:43 pm:
“It is obvious why the bar graph stops at 2011. The data on the CU website shows a sharp increase afterwards. This is absolutely Cherry Picking.
Here’s the current graph from CU Sea Level Research Group –
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2013_rel4/sl_ns_global.png”
it does look like the most egregious cherry picking. Is there some explanation because I thought that we climate sceptics took a higher ground.
Well, some fun at our grandiose leader. Oh, I have a grin, I like political stuff… slowing sea level rise blamed on Bush? or credited to Obama. Lol
The ever forward looking markets are affirmed now in record bull territory. Correction is progressing rationally, such an enormous turn around from the hole that the Republicans dug, deeper than any time since the great depression. Jobs are being added, not subtracted in the last 38 straight months. 6.8 million to be precise, 800,000 in the last 4 months. US Deficit is falling at a faster rate than expected.
Now if someone can steer this great nation in the years ahead through the pressures of an ageing population, rising health care costs, an expansion of federal subsidies for health insurance, and growing interest payments on federal debt when the interest rates eventually go up (return to normal) then Obama and say… hmm maybe Hillary could be chiseled at Mount Rushmore.
Republicans could try recruiting Chelsea.
Kxl will get the go ahead this summer and he is going to rake in a lot more cabbage than the Republicans, the 600,000 jobs spouting conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute did.
If he can walk on water maybe he’s stamped it all down to produce the graph seen above?
It’s about as rational as much else I see spouted off as ‘common sense’ nowadays…..
Could Anthony please explain why he leaves the last years out? Its a bad look, mmmkay.
Jarrett Jones said:
“If I am reading that graph right the “rise of the oceans began to slow” in 2000.”
Which is when I noticed the jets start to become more meridional again and shift equatorward.
Longer lines of air mass mixing, more global cloudiness, higher global albedo and less solar energy getting into the oceans.
Looks more like Bush’s fault to me.
Obama must be prescient. Ocean level appears about to significantly drop.
Obama should also take credit for cooling the planet.
The climate gods appear to be increasing sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere, all months.
Arctic sea ice is starting to ‘recover’ if one’s idea of recovery is a massive amount of sea ice and a cooling planet.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.antarctic.png
I would expect the recent uptick to be linked to our being close to the solar max of cycle 24 mitigating the effect of the quieter sun for a little while and the recent La Ninas (or lack of strong El Ninos) that allow some recharging of ocean heat content as explained by Bob Tisdale
I still think the true net position on a decadal basis is a decline in ocean heat content since around 2000 and that CU has not yet got a grip on all the variables and so is showing too high a level after removing the seasonal signal.
The oceanic response to solar effects on global cloudiness takes some time to show up on ocean heat content estimates and sea levels.
Not only do we have to consider seasonal variations but also the progress of individual solar cycles and the variations in intensity of successive El Ninos and La Ninas.
Taking a view of trends over successive decades as per Figure 1 is far more likely to draw out longer term trends in the size of any anomaly than the CU graph.
The last couple of years doesn’t affect the decadal trend much so of the two styles of presentation I am more critical of the CU style in terms of cherry picking.
Um, I think the honour goes to Andrew Johnson or Ulysses Grant, does it not? The ten biggest decadal rises in sea level all occurred between the late 1700s and the 1860s, so…Johnson? Someone needs to give the guy credit for something.
Seeing as how the Colarado data has now been bastardised to take out effects such as basin expansion it’s actually hard to know what it means. Sea level might actually be declining and yet the ‘data’ would show it still increasing. Arseholes.
“Obama was right…”
No he has always been left, extremely left.
Everybody here has missed the significance of this. Obviously the ocean is not rising DUE precisely to global warming. Trenberth was right, the extra heat is in the oceans which is causing more evaporation into the atmosphere where it dissipates in space due to the contrast between the air and the vacuum. This was not anticipated by our models because it is much worse than we thought. These facts are inarguable and do not need to be discussed further so let’s all just move along please, “thus sayeth the Obama” 😉
Well, he did see to it that we met out Kyoto target. /s Obama has harnessed the power of junk science. If it happens, we told you so. If it doesn’t happen, we saved you.
Imo, the basis of the article seems false. The rate of sea level rise has not decreased. When I look at the data I am a bit concerned that the rate of rise has shown an increase in the last 24 months that if maintained will result come closer to AR4’s forecasted rise. http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
Isostatic rebound gets more interesting when you think of it as more than a statistic. We know that most of the ice was on eastern North America, Greenland, and western Eurasia.. Rebound does not apply only to land. The adjoining ocean basins (Arctic and North Atlantic) are rebounding as well. As a result the other ocean basins are getting deeper and the isostatic load from the water in them is increasing. We think of water as “self leveling” but the mantle is as well, albeit much more slowly. Glad I don’t have to write the parameters for all this!
“This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow, and our planet began to heal.”
So sayeth the Great and Powerful TOTUS (Teleprompter Of The United States). Pay no attention to the corrupt little man behind the curtain……
You should not joke with statistics, some may take it seriously.
You know that the sea continues to raise in the same speed of 3 mm/year
From Rob S on May 29, 2013 at 7:45 am:
You link right to the page with the relevant rate of sea level rise graph, and don’t acknowledge what it shows?
There was a notable dip in 2011. On that page is a link to a CU publication on it:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/2011-la-ni%C3%B1a-so-strong-oceans-fell
The 2011 La Niña: So strong, the oceans fell
Here’s direct link to paper:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Staff/Fasullo/my_pubs/Boening2012etalGRL.pdf
Those “last 24 months” are not an increase in the rate of rise, that’s merely a correction back to the long-term trend. Nothing special going on, no confirmation of the AR4 forecast.
Relax, and stop trying to upset people in such an easily-disproved manner.
Goode ’nuff says:
May 29, 2013 at 1:20 am
Well, some fun at our grandiose leader. Oh, I have a grin, I like political stuff…
Apparently you like writing fiction as well!
The murder of 4 US citizens on US soil at the Benghazi embassy site on 9/11/2013 by muslim terrorists, and the following out right cover up by the highest levels of the Obama administration and the State Department lead by Hillary Clinton, is a failure of leadership of our Dear Commander In Chief and a corruption scandal far more serious than Watergate.
The use of the IRS by the Obama administration to illegally intimidate, harass, and stall groups opposed to Obama’s re-election and socialist agenda and the cover up that is unraveling as we speak is a corruption scandal far more serious than Watergate.
But wait! There’s more!!
The use of the Department of Justice and other federal assets by the Obama administration to illegally investigate, intimidate, harass, and stall legitimate 1st Amendment news reporting by AP and Fox news reports is a corruption scandal far more serious than Watergate.
Oh, I have a grin! I like facts! Especially those facts that highlight the repeated failings and corruption that surrounds our ‘Grandiose Leader’. Impeachment and removal from office will be ‘Goode ’nuff’ and richly deserved!
MTK
Yes, Dr Michaels has indeed not told the whole story by deleting the uptick for the 2003-2012 calculation. But I think he was just trying to emphasize what was right in what the President said and just being silent about what is happening most recently.
He was trying to cover up the fact that at some point before the presidents election and his prediction, the sea rise had in fact started to slow. After 4 years of Mr Obamas administration and all of his and others efforts to combat climate change, the effect has been the opposite! The most recent increases in sea rise during his administration have finally caused the declining decadal calculation to reverse! What have they done? They’ve made it worse!
Pat was just trying to be nice by not pointing out this uncomplimentary fact /sarc
Well, the rate of increase had been declining since decades (if not centuries) before Barry Obama was even born.
MTK, you know why Romney didn’t attack POTUS because the FBI f*d up and they have the dirt on everybody. Including Romney… http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2012/08/mitt-romney-lied-to-husband-of-woman-he.html?m=1 I wouldn’t be surprised there is more. There sure is stuff Bush senior disappeared for his boy.
Reagan didn’t know anything Oliver North was into did he? IRS deal is just like that.
The Whig/Republicans ran us into the ground in the 1930’s and the 2000’s as well. Recall Nixon’s famous trip granting China preferred trading status? Set up EPA for Walton. Alpha Kappa Psi quail hunting buddies with the Gipper. Cheney, the Bush’s, Bubba and Hickabee etc…
Use your brain to do more than absorb everything the talking heads tell you.
I should have added the CIA with the FBI.
The Dutch Dyke problem has been solved by the Europe wide gay marriage thing. Now all the boys can pull their fingers out and live happily ever after…
Remember when China tried to buy Unocal? The Republicans’ communist friends own a significant part of the Canadian oil with the purchase of Nexen. Contracts to buy that fuel are in place. They control 75% of the oil on this planet.
Goode ’nuff says:
May 30, 2013 at 10:00 am
G’uff,
Your commentary has entered the ‘fantasy’ genre. It is way beyond even marginal science fiction. Is there anything science related that you would like to discuss, related to the story above? If not, ‘Have A Rainbow Day!’
MtK
A few questions to the author:
1. How do you calculate your data? is “2003-2012” a difference in sea level between the end of 2012 and begining of 2003?
2. What’s the reason/ advantages for choosing this method, which is susceptible to the interannual variations of both years, over more standard ways to evaluate possible changes in trend, say, moving average?
3. Why the “update” not only added the missing year, as advertised, but also apparently changed some … EARLIER data as well? For instance, in the original Fig.1, the 2002-11 =~ 2.25 mm/yr, while in the “Update” it moved to =~ 2.39 mm/yr. The 2001-10 bar in the original Fig.1 was 2.64 mm/yr, in the “Update” it moved to =~ 2.74. Watts up with that?
Correction to my previous questions to the author:
q.1 -Disregard this one – I was confused by the fact that you used 1 year resolution to present the results (the actual data have 10 day resolution)
q.2 I will change to: “Any reason /advantages for reducing the resolution in the presentation of the data from <10 days to 1 year"?
q.3 the third one I think still stands:
"Why the “update” not only added the missing year, as advertised, but also apparently changed some … EARLIER data as well? For instance, in the original Fig.1, the 2002-11 =~ 2.25 mm/yr, while in the “Update” it moved to =~ 2.39 mm/yr. The 2001-10 bar in the original Fig.1 was 2.64 mm/yr, in the “Update” it moved to =~ 2.74. Watts up with that?"
Cazenave and Llovel 2009 found observed sea level rise from 1993 to 2007 to be aprox. 3.3mm/yr made up mainly of thermal expansion (1.0 +- 0.3 mm/yr), and ice melt from glaciers and ice sheets (aprox. 1.8 mm/yr).
They compared this with the period 2003 to 2007 with an observed rise of aprox. 2.5 mm/yr made up of thermal expansion (0.25 +- 0.8 mm/yr) and ice melt (aprox. 2.4mm/yr) with land water reducing sea levels by 0.2 mm/yr.
If this paper is correct most of the recent sea level rise (2003 to 2007) is due to increased ice melt with thermal expansion falling to a negligable 25mm per century.
In other words the so called missing heat cannot be hiding in the deep ocean (no thermal expansion) and is not measured in the atmosphere.