We’ve been waiting for the UC web page to be updated with the most recent sea level data. It finally has been updated for 2008. It looks like the steady upward trend of sea level as measured by satellite has stumbled since 2005. The 60 day line in blue tells the story.
From the University of Colorado web page:
Since August 1992 the satellite altimeters have been measuring sea level on a global basis with unprecedented accuracy. The TOPEX/POSEIDON (T/P) satellite mission provided observations of sea level change from 1992 until 2005. Jason-1, launched in late 2001 as the successor to T/P, continues this record by providing an estimate of global mean sea level every 10 days with an uncertainty of 3-4 mm.
They also say:
Long-term mean sea level change is a variable of considerable interest in the studies of global climate change. The measurement of long-term changes in global mean sea level can provide an important corroboration of predictions by climate models of global warming. Long term sea level variations are primarily determined with two different methods.
Yes, I would agree, it is indeed a variable of considerable interest. The question now is, how is it linked to global climate change (aka global warming) if CO2 continues to increase, and sea level does not?
There’s an interesting event in October 2005 that I’ll come back to in a couple of days.
(h/t to Mike Bryant)
Sponsored IT training links:
Join pass4sure for best PK0-003 solution. Our 352-001 pdf contains all the required study materials that you need to pass 642-681 exam.
I appreciate many folks here who comment very intelligently. Still, I detect a little fear from the global warming people from comments that say “see, the trend is reversing in the last X numbr of weeks”. It’s a little like trying to tell what ails a patient by just observing his symptoms.
I’ll put this idea out from my naive point of view, in hopes that others more qualified can refine what I propose. I would like to see cause and effect carried all the way back to root causes as applied to global climate. Here is my first stab at it. The sun’s magnetic field is the root cause of short term climate change and the Milankovitch effects are the root cause of long term climate change. My statement is based on my assumptions that it is the flaring and ejections from the sun that pour energy into earths atmosphere and cuase global warming, and it is the tilts and distances of the earth-sun system that establishes how much of the solar energy the earth will receive.
During the last two years, the earth has received very little extra energy from sun spots or CMEs and we are just using what extra heat the oceans had during the last solar peak (which was a doosey). The Milankovitch angles are pointing us to cooler already.
If these assumptions are true, then there is no need to wonder if global warming is going to pick up in the next 20 years. It won’t unless CO2 can overwhelm all these forces. Looking at the patients blood sample and identifying a pathenogen is the sure way to prescribe a cure.
What say? Is there enough motivation out there to convince the rest of us that there really is recipe for global climate change. And I don’t mean the IPCCs recipe.
This is very interesting. The paper is apparently Compo and Sardeshmukh published in Climate Dynamics. A somewhat breathless account is at
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/12/03/rethinking-observed-warming/
I am unable to find even the abstract.
“Atmospheric model simulations of the last half-century with prescribed observed ocean temperature changes, but without prescribed GHG changes, account for most of the land warming.”
Ha- abstract is here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/23/compo-and-sardeshmukh-oceans-a-main-driver-of-climate-variability-its-the-heat-and-the-humidity/
I’m right on top of things- not.
Nah, no need to worry about global warming or cooling. Just worry about those crops getting ruined with a Sun that lies flat on it’s face in a pile of non-active hydrogen goo. Just like the folks did in centuries past, though they had no clue as to the why’s of what happened. All we know is that it does happen.
The Named Minimums & the crop failures.
So what role has science to play in this? Record the data and preserve it for future generations who may have a chance to do better than we and those before us.
That’s all folks.
The world’s oceans have raised an inch in 14 years? Send out the life rafts!
Which oceans have raised, by how much and where? Have lakes and rivers also raised? Has land sunk around the oceans or has land also risen up to keep up with the oceans? Does land always stay constant? Do oceans always stay a constant level? Will my 50th great-grandchildren become rich because my inland property will eventually be ocean front?
I am not very educated and I am repelled by boring science stuff. That’s why it alarms me that as stupid as I am, I can see through the bogus in all the AGW fear mongering and yet the global warming movement marches forward, with our tax dollars paying the way. It makes no logical sense and yet it’s given a free pass by our government and the media. We are living in a time of great insanity and deception.
“2008 will be coolest year of the decade: Global average for 2008 should come in close to 14.3C, but cooler temperature is not evidence that global warming is slowing, say climate scientists” by James Randerson @ur momisugly guardian.co.uk, Friday December 5 2008.
Ed Scott (11:41:51) :
It seems to me that the only reference point for measuring sea level is the center of the Earth. How accurately can that be determined.?
We have reference spheroids (aka geoids) to use as a datum – the whole science of cartography is based on these – ie anything to be mapped on this lumpy, non homogenous earth (this is largely gravity driven) needs this as a basis, including mapping sea level changes. Redundancy of satellite measurements increases the signal to noisy quality of sea level measurements (the random noise cancels itself out) – allowing for highly accurate measurements. Satellite position relative to the reference spheroid (aka datum) is also worked out fairly easily (ie GPS technology).
To see a vertically exaggerated picture of how lumpy the geoid is + some more details on methodology , see link:
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/mar/grace-in-space
OT: Some dire predictions from David Barber, a geoscientist, at the University of Manitoba.
Arctic will have first ice-free summer in 2015: Researcher
http://www.theprovince.com/news/Arctic+will+have+first+free+summer+2015+Researcher/1039105/story.html
“In 2008 it recovered a bit, but my research shows there isn’t anything to instil confidence in . . . we’re expecting 2009 will be another year of low ice.”
Deadwood,
The rate is determined by the slope and the slope appears to be flat for the last 3 years. That was the whole point.
Re the Guardian article – has anyone come up with a sensible answer as to why the global temperatures started rising so quickly from 1910
Phillip:
>And if you look at the comments on that Guardian article (a very left wing paper) . . .
Well, yes and no. Back in 2004, the (a right-of-centre) Daily Telegraph noted that:
“A private equity house backed by Paul Myners,the Guardian Media Group chairman, and Sir David Frost, the broadcaster, is about to turn wind into money.
“Englefield Capital is set to sell its stake in Zephyr Investments, Britain’s biggest wind energy provider, for more than three times what it paid for the business just three years ago.
“In February 2004 Englefield, RWE Innogy and the First Islamic Investment Bank paid around £33m each to buy into Zephyr, the green energy investment fund, which then bought out RWE’s existing wind energy sites and its development portfolio.”
For details, see: http://www.swap.org.uk/index.asp?pageid=86553 page 21
Wikipedia In re Paul Myners:
Paul Myners, Baron Myners, CBE (born 1 April 1948) was appointed as a government minister, Financial Services Secretary (a position sometimes referred to as City Minister) in HM Treasury, in October 2008, when it was also announced he would be elevated to the peerage. He also serves on the Prime Minister’s National Economic Council. He became a peer on 21 October 2008.]
He was, until the date of his Ministerial appointment, chairman of the Guardian Media Group, publisher of The Guardian and The Observer newspapers, and chairman of Land Securities Group, the largest quoted property company in Europe at the time. He is a former Chairman of Marks & Spencer and Deputy Chair of PowerGen.
Vested interests in the AGW debate? The very idea.
George E. Smith
Thanks for reply.
I have explained to my wife what we are going to do.
“NOT in my kitchen!! I’ve just cleaned the floor!”
I am aware of latent heat.
It is a question of scale.
Observed effects in a science beaker are one thing but to apply those effects to an Ocean. Yes brilliant. You may gather I’m impressed.
“Now your kids do this every day with ice cubes and Coke or Pepsi”
No no no no that is foreign muck, no one drinks that!!
We have IRN-BRU, it is made from girders and has a latent heat in excess of 200 cal/g and has been known to glow in the dark!!
Please enjoy:
http://www.irn-bru.co.uk/advert/snowman.html
B Kerr
Correct me if I’m wrong (as I’m sure you guys will) but haven’t actual measured temperatures shown no temperature increase starting in 1998 with a decrease starting in 2002? It seems that this coincides pretty well with the decreasing sea-levels, or is this just something that I’m reading into it?
What I think of these measurements of vast systems is that I seriously doubt if any of them are outside of the MOE by any appreciable degree.
I think that the free use of proxies, and then claiming that they are as accurate as modern methods is not only fallacious, but deliberately misleading.
We know that sea levels have risen and fallen over long periods of time. Often by tens of feet, even hundreds.
For people to get excited by fractions of millimeters over decades, when the end result is a trend line that is the historical norm is yet more evidence that what is interesting about AGW is its life as a social movement.
James,
The sea level trend starts to level in 2006 so that is later than the temperature changes. Could be the short term trend is just an anomaly and sea level will continue back on its climb soon or it could be real. There are other spots in the data that show flat trends for two or three years. If it is related to the temperature curves and is just a lagging indicator it should keep the new trend for a couple of more years.
I have been trying to visualize what may be happening to sea levels and the following questions have cropped up.
The earth is not a perfect sphere and is not a solid mass and so has no real strength in compression or tension, only the very thin crust gives it that illusion, in actual fact the earth is quite plastic, rather like a very soft rubber ball) as the earth orbits the sun in a slightly off centre oval could this plastic quality affect the shape of the earth and therefore influence sea levels? As the earths land masses are not evenly distributed around the equator is there a possibility that the fluid pacific sea level is influenced by the earths orbit around the sun while the opposite side of mainly land mass stays in place and does this also have an dynamic effect on the earths orbit?
Do the gas giants(planets) exert a force on this planets oceans as they pass close to earth, I do know that the moon influences sea levels and even ground levels as its mass exerts a gravitational pull on the earths surface, now can all the above influences shift sea levels in a cyclic pattern to give the false impression of a sea level rise when in fact liquid water volumes are pretty much constant?
I would very much appreciate any advice or input anyone might be able to offer so I could better understand what is actually happening.
James (03:22:08)
Yes, James, it is my relatively uninformed opinion that the sea level most closely follows thermal contraction or expansion, and this near term stasis is a manifestation of the general cooling also shown in the atmosphere. This would argue that there is no ‘extra heat’ in the pipeline deeper than the two miles measured by the Argos buoys.
============================================
Love that IRN BRU ad! Mr. Kerr, having some deep roots in the Highlands,I hope one day to see that “auld sod”.
That said, has anyone seen any recent Mauna Kea CO2 data?
Mauna Loa CO2:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
Posting in this topic here as there is a reference to sea level rise.
——-
Today I watched an interview on the BBC News channel here in the UK where a leading Green campaigner was challenged by a BBC correspondent as to the veracity of Anthropogenic Climate Change, I was floored by this novel and totally unexpected treatment from a BBC correspondent. Below is recollection rather than a verbatim report.
Caroline Lucas UK MEP Green party Leader was interviewed today by Peter Sissons on BBC News TV (viewed at 1.15pm GMT approx) and went immediately into a save the world monologue including the tipping point is nigh and other related phrases. When Sissons’ got a word in he raised the point that the climate is not cooperating in this respect re. recent weather, the response then implying that the evidence is in the melting icecaps and rising sea levels. Sissons when he got back in injected no warming since 1998 and made the point that contrary to the “consensus” an increasing number of scientists are coming out to state against the consensus. By this time Lucas was virtually apoplectic mixing words and demanding to know how the BBC could be coming out and making such comments and insisted that the consensus be followed and everyone should move on. Sissons came back that his role as a journalist is always to investigate and review all sides and he would continue to do so. Lucas finished with a further attack and somewhat veiled warning to which Sissons replied with an “Oohh”.
In the following hour he interviewed Nick Clegg, leader of the UK Liberal Democrat party who started with the need for reduced CO2 emissions and commended the Climate Change bill signed in by the UK Government recently. Sissons then asked what real impact UK steps would have on the entire global climate and then mentioned again the falling global average temperatures since 1998 and insisted that this is promoted by leading scientists. Clegg insisted otherwise and rolled out the IPCC and its experts, Sissons parried this and again Clegg said he did not think it a true statement restating his own belief. He did seem just a little surprised at being challenged with such questions in a concerted manner. Wonder if he will check the statement made by Sissons or rely on Cognitive Dissonance to resolve rude intrusion into his belief set.
For those outside the UK that may not know, an MEP is a member of the European Parliament and Caroline Lucas leads the UK Green party members there. The UK Liberal Democrats are the distant third or so political party here in the UK.
Peter Sissons is a veteran BBC reporter.
I have recorded the second interview and will leave it recording today in the hope that the earlier interview is repeated. Also might be worth watching out for it on Youtube, maybe someone else captured it. There is, of course, the question as to whether he will have a job next week. We will recall what happened when a BBC on-line reporter went off message and reported a contrarian report verbatim.
When I read the comments, I become overwhelmed because the conversation appears to be way above me. However, I am going to throw something out for discussion. I may regret the idea.
There has been little discussion about the sun. In October 2005, there was a significant shift in the solar conveyor belt as was noted by Livingston and Penn at the National Solar Observaory. Could there be any relationship between this shift and sea level change?
I’m sorry. It may just be a crazy idea.
Jeff,
There is nothing at all crazy about the question. It seems that every part of the puzzle affects every other part to some degree. The climate of our dear Earth is only now yielding up a few of her secrets. It seems that with each advance in our understanding, we find ourselves with new questions. However it has become abundantly clear that CO2 in our atmosphere is a minor player.
Cassandra King
Jeff L answered my question: “It seems to me that the only reference point for measuring sea level is the center of the Earth. How accurately can that be determined.?”
Jeff referred to this link: http://discovermagazine.com/2007/mar/grace-in-space.
This link describes the technology involved, but does not answer the question of accuracy. There are several measurement systems involved, each unavoidably having a range of error. Giving the error range of 2-3 mm for sea level measurement without reference to other system errors is an incomplete picture, unless the total system error is combined in the sea level measurement. Leaving out the other pluses and minuses is bothersome to me.
The real kicker in the article is the revelation: Measurements reveal that some parts of the ocean are a remarkable 390 feet lower than average, and others are 300 feet higher. What is the average sea level, within an error range of 2-3 mm? (:-)
Mick J
I wish that I had seen Peter Sissons on the BBC news.
Looks like I missed a show!!
I’ve been into BBC ipod but one o’clock news is not available.
Well done Peter Sissons.
Can we take a step back from curent minimal sea level rise (or is it fall?) and view it in its historic context?
CA had a debate about this;
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=61
Sea levels were higher back in the MWP and the Roman warm period. Harlech castle in Britain for instance is these days remote from the sea (nothing to do with stasis or silting) When it was built there were steps from the castle leading to a sea gate and quay. William the conquerors landing site in 1066 is now dry or merely marshy. Where the Romans landed has a similar scenario albeit a thousand years earlier.
Check out http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov
where yoiu can check out the historic records of many places. I have cherry picked Newlyn in the Uk aND which goes back nearly 80 tyears where sea levels have been dropping in recenmt yerars anmd atre nearly back to those levels.
Brunel built a sea wall to take his new steam train from Lobndin through the west of England. I can see it from my houyse and often walk by it. THe height hasnt shiofted since thern. We need to look at a much loinger hiostoric context than we tend to do-the sea level isnt going to rise by 20foot by the end of the century as Hansen recently claimed the latest estimates are 8 to 12 inches.
If you want to do a serious appraisal of sea levels merely google ‘Prof Morner’# whi is considered tyhe greatest expert abnd see what he thinks-Clue he thinks global sea level rise are ‘a lie’
I agree with him although that is not to say that by the nature of things some places arent going to have higher levels but on the whole this whole thing is highly exaggerated.
TonyB