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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Can we take a step back from current tiny 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 you can examine the historic sea level records of many places. I have cherry picked Newlyn in the UK and Helsink in Finland, as they both have long records going back many years. Helsinki shows a substantial decline since 1880. More relecant to me is Newlyn some 60 nautical miles away from my coastal home. That level hasn’t moved and bears out my own observations-.
Brunel built a sea wall to take his new steam train from London through the west of England in 1850. I can see it from my house and often walk by it. The sea height hasn’t shifted since then-as evidenced by the water marks and the historical Newlyn data.
If you want to do a serious appraisal of sea levels merely google ‘Prof Morner’ who is considered the greatest expert on the subject and see what he thinks about the IPCC’s prouncements on the subject.
We need to take a look at the historic context much more than we do, whether its sea level rise (unchanged) , temperatures (barely changed in 300 years) ‘unprecedented’ arctic ice melt-which happens every 50 years or so. I dont think there is a single historian in the IPCC or they wouldn’t continually come up with their nonsensical ‘unprecedented’ claims so often.
TonyB
Sorry everyone
The first post ‘escaped’ before it was finished-please read only the second
TonyB
Thanks Mike Bryant for the info. Is it me, or does the graph seem to be a bit precipitous for what appears to me to be just another BB in the atmospheric Boxcar?..
Completely missed the BBC interview we are discussing, Peter Sissons has always struck me as someone from the Bruce Forsyth mould of honourable people trying to present as a reliable man shoulod. I’m really interested in the viw of the interest average Brit regarding this becaue we are being charged £10 billion extra on our household bills due to the European Emissions Trading Scheme and absolutely no-one is aware of it, not even the journalists. And then we have a weather station survey like at http://www.wacv.co.uk which shows huge heat sources around measuring sources. I give up,I really do..
“Is it me, or does the graph seem to be a bit precipitous for what appears to me to be just another BB in the atmospheric Boxcar?..”
The neat thing about graphs is that you can make them as “precipitous” as you want. If you include the values down to zero it does not appear nearly so steep.
Also look at the graphs here:
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/ccr.pdf
Regarding the Peter Sissons interview, I scoured the BBC website for a copy of the news at one, which normally would be available on iPlayer. I have found the link to the news item, however a diferent part of the site states that this item is no longer available. Me thinks someone is purposely trying to hide it…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00g3fcd (not available message)
Here is something very interesting.
At the Aviso site, you can also pick which ocean to look at.
It is really only the Indian Ocean which is rising since 2002 at 5 mm per year. All the other ocean basins are close to flat over the period.
That would signal ocean circulation and regional heating being responsible for sea level rise with global warming playing a more minor role. The recent El Ninos of the last ten years eventually push warm ocean water into the Indian Ocean and into the west side of the Pacific, where it can stay for long periods of time.
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/images/news/indic/msl/MSL_Serie_J1_Indian_NoIB_RWT_PGR_NoAdjust.png
Same data with the seasonal signal removed.
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/images/news/indic/msl/MSL_Serie_J1_Indian_NoIB_RWT_PGR_Adjust.png
Paul S
Let us try this site tomorrow.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007mpl9
We can only hope!
This is quite sad, don`t laugh, my 24 year old granddaughter came to visit today, she mentioned getting a BBC DVD titled Natural world or something for a friend, this led to global warming. My granddaughter mentioned in the ensuing conversation that she had been informed that the Maldives would sink below the ocean in about 2 years and she would like to visit before that happened, she is an administrator in charge of a large department in a major UK power supply company, she had no idea what carbon credits or carbon trading was, she also had no idea that a 100 watt bulb used more power than a 11watt low energy lamp. The generation that left school before this AGW rubbish started have no idea how much this madness is going to cost them.
??
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=12&fd=06&fy=1979&sm=12&sd=06&sy=2008
??
WUWT
Aliens?
B Kerr (14:31:03) :
“Paul S
Let us try this site tomorrow.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007mpl9
We can only hope!”
Hope and The Ministry of Truth do not play well together-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00g3fcd/BBC_News_at_One_06_12_2008/
If it ain’t there by now…..
Terry,
I guess it’s their way of saying, “We can paint anything we want to an the sea ice pictures, and you can’t do anything about it.”
Mike,
It is worse than that, as you well know.
Looks like not only-
“BBC News: 06/12/2008 is no longer available. Programmes are available for a limited number of days after broadcast”
at the above link, but they even expunged the day itself !
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007mpl9
That Winston Smith. One efficient little drone isn’t he.
(I don’t often use exclamation marks but figured this warranted one)
Douglas DC:
You’re right about the x-axis in the Mauna Loa CO2 graph.
Here’s the same info in a not-so-scary format:click
Looks as if BBC 24 TV is not streamed.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/tv/bbc_news24/2008-12-06
Maybe someone has downloaded Peter Sissons on Sky+
Ah well, would have been good to have seen.
Smokey (02:02:35) :
Douglas DC:
Even more interesting is the increase of CO2 from year to year, shown in
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/FlaticecoreCO2.pdf .
It lags the temperature anomaly by some months but follows its shape.
AnnaV
i have posted these graphs elsewhere but interested in your comments
THe ice cap graph seems to confirm something I have been saying ever since I compiled this graph-it shows Hadley CET back to 1660, together with the CDIAC/IPCC estimates of total global human co2 emissions since 1750
http://cadenzapress.co.uk/download/mencken.xls
it was obvious from this that either;
a) CO2 had nothing to do with anything, as we have had historic measured temperatures as warm as today’s without the benefit of co2 levels of 380ppm
OR
b)That there were co2 spikes and troughs ‘missing’ that would explain the fluctuating temperatures.
As a result I became intrerested in the work of Ernst Beck and have just finished thoroughly researching the historic use of co2 from the 1820’s onwards.
Suffice to say that from the Victorian era onwards accurate measurements were routinely taken for a variety of medical and enmployment purposes-there was even a British factories act in 1889 to ensure co2 levels were kept lower than 900ppm in cotton factories.
These measurements were taken by very many extremely high quality scientists-some nobel winners- who knew perfectly well how to use their equipment in order to arrive at accurate readings that were commonly as high as today.
If you then read GS Callendars archives (hundreds of files on DVD) and Keelings autobiography, you realise the first was guilty of cherry picking in order to further his theory of AGW, whilst the latter -as a young man with no experience whatosever of climate sciece, co2 measurements or history- merely accepted what the older man told him. As a result of all this I compiled the following graph
http://cadenzapress.co.uk/download/beck_mencken_hadley.xls
This is more sophisticated than the first graph in as much it accurately measures metric million tons against both ppm and temperatures. The blue line just discernible at the bottom is the total of ALL human co2 emissions since 1750 (Cdiac/IPCC) but put in the context of ALL co2 emissions.
The yellow dots are some of Ernst Becks historic measurements. I have researched the circumstances of the 12 he considers the most reliable and they do range from around 290 to around 400ppm. AsS you can see all the co2 action takes place at around 600,000 to 820,000 MMT. It takes around 260GT to move from the highest to the lowest part of the scale, which sources/sinks can outgas or absorb over one year. Temperature rises first and co2 follows and the whole cycle is very quick.
Either the ice cores are wrong OR temperatures can rise and fall by large amounts at a constant level of 280ppm. I think the former is most likely.
The graphs are in Excel so people can hover the mouse pointer over a dot to obtain the background data. Alternatively I have a jpeg available if people merely want an image,
Tony Brown
Ok…once again, you science folks have gotten it all wrong.
As it turns out, we need to MELT the icecaps…asap…because MELTING icecaps help solve GW.
I’m a bit dissapointed that someone here didn’t figure this out first…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/07/melting-icebergs-slow-global-warming
Jim
Hi Mike Bryant,
It is I, Jeff, with the crazy solar conveyor belt theory. I hope you are still visiting these comments. First of all, thank you for not dismissing the idea. This is where I am coming from on the theory.
In October 2005, there was a significant shift in the solar conveyor belt. Anthony posted on this on June 15, 2008. He also posted on the Livingston and Penn paper June 2, 2008.
Since October 2005, there has been a significant decrease in the heliosphere and a significant increase in cosmic rays bombarding the Earth. These cosmic rays focus toward the Polar Regions because they are charged particles and the poles are magnetic.
Under Svensmark and Friis-Christensen solar forcing theory, there is probably a significant increase in low-level stratus cloud cover over the Polar Region. The Polar Regions probably have a much greater percentage change in cloud cover than the rest of the planet because of this focus of cosmic rays.
With more cloud cover, there are probably colder temperatures and less sun light for melting. This is only a theory. I am not a scientist.
If you are still out there, tell me, what do you think about this theory.
Jeff Wiita
Sorry, I did not finish the theory before I submitted.
With more cloud cover, cooler temperatures, and less sun light for melting the polar ice caps, water from precipitation accumulates at the Polar Regions. That results in lower sea levels.
Jeff Wiita
Sorry, I thought of one more thing for the solar conveyor belt theory.
More cloud cover results in cooler temperatures, which cools the oceans, which makes the oceans contract, resulting in lower sea levels.
More cloud cover also strengthens the PDO, and lengthens La Nina in the ENSO.
Have a nice warm future mini ice age.
Jeff Wiita
The second interview with Nick Clegg, leader of the UK Liberal democrat party is at http://shorterlink.com/?KQUTJC
The last minute of the four minutes or so segment is the interesting part where at least one BBC staffer breaks ranks with the “consensus”.
{sarc}The Ubermessiah has already pushed back the oceans{/sarc}
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
Mike J
Great link. They boy did well!!
Nick says “All scientist agree … … eh .. most … eh.. ”
Excuse me but who is Nick Clegg?
Why is he on the BBC being interviewed?
Is he important in England.
I’ve heard of “Furious Cameron”, tries to look like Al Gore and Data from Star Trek.
Mick J (10:27:52)
Watch Nick Clegg’s grimace as the topic is brought up. I waver between thinking he’s chagrined at disinformation, or chagrined at being caught out. He falls back solely to a argument to authority and ‘disputes very much’ what should be plain as the hand in front of his face, that the globe is now cooling.
Oh, yes, cooling for how long, even kim doesn’t know.
=====================================