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.
Kim say:
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.
What cooling?
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2005/ann/us-summary.html
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Hansen_etal_2.pdf
look at this book:
Gille, Sarah T. – “Warming of the Southern Ocean Since the 1950s”.
And about the rise of sea level look at this photo:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png
This is not the high warming on the earth, it is only a relatively small warming(i.e.:Greenland – green+land – this means greenland was green, and not white, when vikings found them), in some ages is possible the ice didn’t exist.
But, the warming is NOW present!
Larh,
The US economy may have a tremendous influence on the rest of the world, but the same may not be said of the US Climate.
As for the sea level rise, like every other graph on Wikipedia related to climate change, it is outdated. The data end in 2003.
I wouldn’t cite anything by Hansen as he has proved he’s lost his marbles when he said that sea levels would rise 20ft by 2100.
Just saw the Nick Clegg interview. He did look a little nervous when Mr Sisson’s told him global temperatures had fallen over the last 10 years…
B Kerr (11:31:39) :
Excuse me but who is Nick Clegg?
Why is he on the BBC being interviewed?
Nick Clegg is the leader of the Liberal Democrats. The no3 party here in the UK. He’s on the green campaign trail so his position and stance on green issues is most likely the two reasons why he’s being interviewed.
To Larh
There have been a number of times in geological history when temperatures have been higher than now. The key to understanding the raising temperatures for the 30 years prior to 1998 is to understand why and how historical changes happened. I truly believe that once we understand why it happened then, we will have a good understanding of why it happened recently.
Larh, a graph of sea levels at 23 unamed tide gauges means absolutely nothing.
With a basic knowledge of tectonic processes (knowing where land is rising or falling), I could name 23 locations where I could gaurantee sea level has fallen, as well as 23 locations where sea level has risen.
The satellite data is more reliable as it attempts to measure sea levels across the globe and isn’t subject to local tectonic effects like tide gauges.
And, graphs that don’t show recent temperatures isn’t a very convincing argument against recent cooling.
OT China is cold this year too:
http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-36861020081204
TonyB (04:50:32) :
Interesting . I agree with you that most probably the icecores have arbitrary callibrations in absolute scale. I still suspect that being close to huge sinks of cold water they are just a record of the CO2 in that region and not a world CO2 proxy( in addition to all the objections on methodology by a number of people).
I would like to investigate further the question of ice cores showing a constant 280ppm since pre industrial times and 295ppm since 1900. The observational evidence as referred to here (my post at 4.50 today goes into detail) shows low co2 levels seem to have no effect whatsoever on historically high temperatures
http://cadenzapress.co.uk/download/mencken.xls
This graph puts all human co2 emissions since 1750 into context.
http://cadenzapress.co.uk/download/beck_mencken_hadley.xls
If co2 has an effect on temperature, historic co2 levels MUST be higher than today. The yellow dots give observed readings from 1820 onwards.
Any information on how the ice cores are measured, their reliability or ANYTHING that will demonstrate how a constant 280ppm in the past can produce temperatures equivalent to- or higher- than today, is welcome. If Anna herself -or anyone-can amplify her most interesting comments that would also be great.
Constant low levels of co2 should be consistent with constant low temperatures that barely fluctuate, but they self evidently aren’t. WHY?
TonyB
You all are missing the point. Follow the money! How can they sell carbon credits if there isn’t a carbon disaster aka Global Warming. If the oceans rise to much we can move on to them. Didn’t any of you see the movie “Sea World”. If not driving SUVs can change the climate of the the world just think what 2 or three atomic bombs will do. Maybe some smart lawyer (follow the Money) can bring a class action suit against God and make him stop all volcanic activity and other natural pollution. The thing to remember is we live in a closed environment it all was here and can not leave. All that is except what NASA shoots up into space.
TonyB, how about posting your graphs as jpegs, can’t open xls. Thank you
TonyB wrote:
Any information on how the ice cores are measured, their reliability or ANYTHING that will demonstrate how a constant 280ppm in the past can produce temperatures equivalent to- or higher- than today, is welcome.
It’s simple. CO2 does not “produce” temperatures. It lags temperature changes, sometimes by as much as centuries.
The Vostok Ice cores are among the longest time records as far as I can tell, and I have read that they had to stop drilling because of the discovery of “Lake Vostok” underneath all that ice, and a desire to not drill into it; at least not prematurely before adult scientists decide what if any would be the benefits of doing that.
But Vostok is one of the weirdest places on this planet, because of its temperatures, where CO2 snow is apparently a relatively common occurrence. I talked to someone on another site, who had actually observed CO2 snow at the south pole.
So does any one wonder; as I do, just what information is really encapsulated in those deep ice cores. Where does that water come from originally, and what were the conditions under which the CO2 in it got there. CO2 must dissolve in water droplets or ice crystals in clouds, and when that stuff falls to earth, it must sit for a long time during which it is in contact with the local atmosphere. How about migratioon of the CO2 and other gases during the eons of the ice compaction.
Frankly if I wanted to store a representative sample of earth’s atmosphere, I would not choose a pile of compressed snow to do it.
Now I suspect that the timing of steep edges of composition changes in the ice are of some reliability; but why would anybody believe that the absolute concentration levels of the gases are what was laid down originally.
So I believe the relative timing information at least to the extent that they are careful in counting the “tree rings” which is what the snow layers are equivalent to; but I would take the concentration numbers with a good deal of caution. I wouoldn’t be making any local climate declarations based on that and I certainly wouldn’t be even wildly guessing any global climate from that information.
So if I drill a 10,000 ft rock core in Spokane, and another one in Atlanta, is it ok for me to describe the entire geology record of North America based on that information. does anyone in this business understand the mathematical laws of sampled data systems?
Just asking !
Snow is falling on the home page of the WUWT web site and its intensity seems to be increasing.
Intense dredging activity in SF Bay this year. It’s a struggle to keep it navigable.
Clark (10:43:55) :
Barak Obama was right – the sea DID stop rising when he was elected!
Barak Canute?
Flanagan said:
“Making climatic trends over 3 years is at the best naive, not to say misleading.
“Look at this! No rise between 1992 and 1995. Proof there’s no warming. The same holds for 1998-2000 where the levels actually decreased!!! But … Wait… How is it possible then that sea levels increased between 1992 and 2000 ? ”
Short term and long term. Never heard of short-scale variability?”
Yes! In fact, most of us evil “deniers” HAVE heard of it. Which is why many of us ARE “deniers”. The satellite data have only been around since 1992. No matter what they show — it’s short term. Prior to that, all Warmists have is ridiculous tide chart data, mostly from the low countries in Europe.
At the same time you scoff at half the data, you try to claim that the other half is reliable.
What is presented here does not disprove Global Warming; but then, that’s NOT OUR JOB! It is the job of Warmist fanatics like you to PROVE that warming exists. This has never been done. What the data here shows is that it is VERY unlikely that it ever will be done.
30 years of prediction after prediction — rescinded and re-predicted. Hundreds of highly publicized predictions by Warmist Acolytes — And NOT ONE has ever come true.
In THREE DECADES of incessant apocalyptic predictions, and NONE have been accurate? What do you call a “scientific” theory with ZERO predictive value?
Hint: I call it Horsesh*t.
What
Steve
my post of 7 December and your reply.
As suggested here is graph 2 in jpeg form
http://cadenzapress.co.uk/download/beck_mencken_hadley.jpg
I am hoping to have the first graph available in same format by friday.
TonyB