There was a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth when Dr. Roger Pielke mentioned a couple of weeks ago in a response to Real Climate that “Sea level has actually flattened since 2006”.
Today the University of Colorado updated their sea level graph after months of no updates. Note it says 2009_rel3 in lower left.
Source here. Here is the next oldest graph from UC that Pielke Sr. was looking at.
The newest one also looks “flat” to me since 2006, maybe even a slight downtrend since 2006. Let the wailing and gnashing begin anew.
Here is the text file of sea level data for anyone that wants to plot it themselves. In fact I did myself and my graph is below, with no smoothing or trend lines.
Here’s what UC says about the graph. They also provide an interactive wizard to look at specific areas.
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. The latest mean sea level time series and maps of regional sea level change can be found on this site. Concurrent tide gauge calibrations are used to estimate altimeter drift. Sea level measurements for specific locations can be obtained from our Interactive Wizard.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
How fast do you suppose it will drop now that the data modelers are going crazy dropping Fire Engine Red dots everywhere?
This is definately something to watch. I hope that UC update on a more regular basis. The second graph, cleared of all that clutter, certainly seems to indicate a levelling off. The new data is shaping up to be yet another large nail in the AGW coffin. Shame on the politicians who steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the reality of accumulating empirical evidence.
Mean sea level is the best metric we have of whether the Earth’s climate is warming or cooling and it is not subject to ‘weather noise’. While there is some contribution from gain or loss of ice, it is primarily a measure of ocean heat content.
A flat trend means the Earth’s climate isn’t gaining heat, ie the climate isn’t warming.
My interpretation is that the oceans have now reached equilibrium with whatever changes occured in the 20th century. Further, the SST data (heat release from the oceans) indicates to me that we will see falling sea levels in the future due to cooling oceans.
“Worse than WE thought”.
THEY were right.
The NASA climate change site has updated it’s sea level graph, with the latest figure of 22mm at June 09, but it does not match the graph on the Univ of Colorado site that it notes as the source.
http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/index.cfm#SeaLevel
The NASA site has left the banner headine saying 3.4mm/yr, but the trend line they show looks more like 2.7mm/yr.
This data is confirmed by actual measurements done through the GLOSS network of stations. Calculations for the last 9 years of data, from stations referenced in Douglas et al. (1997) show a sharp decline in the last 3 years!
The United States is an interesting example. The stations show the biggest worldwide downward trends, especially Honolulu, La Jolla and San Diego stations. By the other hand, the Pacific around Indonesia seems to be getting the biggest rises.
So while Gore et al are trying to pass the catastrophic idea of a global sea level rise, one has to remain calm, as it’s going up in some places, and actually going down in others.
Ecotretas
http://ecotretas.blogspot.com/search/label/subida%20dos%20mares
Stop looking at the data! Look at the TREND LINE! That’s why we put it there!
This is showing some of the standard tools for making factual data appear to represent something other than what it does. The trend line, the extra data points hovering around like a swarm of insects, and the general clutter confusing the portion of the data they want you to not notice.
Dishonesty is becoming the new face of science.
Meanwhile, a satirical taste of how AGW inspired energy policies might shape the future of the UK:
http://web.me.com/sinfonia1/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Entries/2009/7/15_Mr_Lemuel_Gulliver_Visits_Milibandia.html
PS Ed Miliband is Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. He’s the idiot who rammed the EU driven Carbon Credits and Sequestration Bill (Cap and Trade) through parliament while even bigger idiots accepted it without bothering to actually look at what they were voting on let alone ask the electorate (the people who will actually foot the bill) what they thought about it.
How many years/months smoothing are they using on that trend line? Looks like only two points in the last two years are above the “trend”.
By the other hand, the Pacific around Indonesia seems to be getting the biggest rises.
In the late 1990s there were massive peat fires in Indonesia. Thick haze covered much of SE Asia for weeks at a time. I lived in Singapore at this time and I can tell you that sunlight was dramatically reduced. It was like dusk all day.
Since then the region has returned to normal sunlight conditions and this likely explains the sea level rise over the last 10 years.
Which means the sea level rises around Indonesia due to local events are probably masking a global fall in sea levels.
Good stuff. Just a slight note of caution. The graph in Pielke’s article is the ‘seasonal signals removed’ version, the graph at the top of the thread is the ‘raw’ data.
Sea level rise is driven by solar input to the oceans. The sun’s output has been below the level where the oceans gain net energy for a few years now.
Since ocean heat content is not really affected by the atmosphere much, we need to revisit ideas about the sun having been responsible for GW.
Scafetta’s presentation at the EPA archive is a good summary, whichever side of the ACRIMonious debate on TSI calibration you land on.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/wkshp.nsf/vwpsw/84E74F1E59E2D3FE852574F100669688/$file/scafetta-epa-2009.pdf
A commenter to Dr. Pielke’s post linked to this paper on calibration error in the sat. altimetry record, http://www.ocean-sci.net/5/193/2009/os-5-193-2009.pdf
A new assessment of the error budget of global mean sea level rate estimated by satellite altimetry over 1993–2008
M. Ablain1, A. Cazenave2, G. Valladeau1, and S. Guinehut1
1CLS, Ramonville Saint-Agne, France
2LEGOS, OMP, Toulouse, France
Abstract. A new error budget assessment of the global Mean Sea Level (MSL) determined by TOPEX/Poseidon and Jason-1 altimeter satellites between January 1993 and June 2008 is presented using last altimeter standards. We discuss all potential errors affecting the calculation of the global MSL rate. We also compare altimetry-based sea level with tide gauge measurements over the altimetric period. Applying a statistical approach, this allows us to provide a realistic error budget of the MSL rise measured by satellite altimetry. These new calculations highlight a reduction in the rate of sea level rise since 2005, by ~2 mm/yr. This represents a 60% reduction compared to the 3.3 mm/yr sea level rise (glacial isostatic adjustment correction applied) measured between 1993 and 2005. Since November 2005, MSL is accurately measured by a single satellite, Jason-1. However the error analysis performed here indicates that the recent reduction in MSL rate is real.
The result of their reanalysis stated in their conclusion is a trend of 3.11+/-0.6mm/yr for the whole period and they also state that the 1mm/yr trend of the last 3 years can’t be attributed to altimeter drift error. Evidently the lads at UC aren’t buying it yet, or maybe they just missed it
If it’s going up in some place and going down in others, it means the sea levels are NOT rising but staying put. It also means some continents are rising and others are falling.
Aren’t they supposed to be checking the landmass elevations with lasers?
I still can’t tell by going down to the beach I visited 50 years ago that anything has changed.
“Sea level rise is driven by solar input to the oceans.”
Plus of course ice melt and changes in land storage. I’ve been concentrating on ocean heat content and forgot to mention that.
I think I have the answer to this apparent flattening. We can all see that this is a hugely dangerous trend – otherwise why would the graph be in red? What I think is happening is that the sea has risen rapidly, and is now pouring into low-lying places like the Netherlands, the Dead Sea and the Sahel depression.
That would explain why there is a temporary lull in the graph, but it will soon begin to rise again, and we only have 100 months to stop it!
People may claim that there are no reports of flooding in low lying areas, but they are just deniers and are not published in approved peer-reviewed texts, so we won’t listen to them….
Does anyone know where I can download data on greenland ice melt rates?
That’s scary, a 3.2mm/year rise in sea level. How will mankind ever adapt to a 12½in. rise in the next hundred years?
gary
Philip_B (00:23:12) :Mean sea level is the best metric we have of whether the Earth’s climate is warming or cooling and it is not subject to ‘weather noise’.
Definitely, with one proviso. It seems reasonable to me to consider that, even in stable temperatures, sea level will rise overall, for four reasons (a) ongoing very-slow rebound from the last glaciation (land effects with local pluses and minuses) (b) accumulation of silt from rivers (c) accumulation of dust in rain from aerosols, volcanoes, the cosmos, land surfaces, etc (d) ongoing calcification, using newly released / dissolved Ca++ and CO2.
Has anyone estimated any such “base” rise?
Earlier in the week I posted a link on the Tips and Notes thread to another paper I came across related the contribution of geothermal heating to the oceanic heat budget in general and circulation patterns in particular
http://www.ocean-sci.net/5/203/2009/os-5-203-2009.pdf
To my layman’s eye read this seems to indicate that the geothermal component has been and probably still is little understood, generally neglected and underestimated in considerations of oceanic heat flux. But, since this was the result I was hoping to find, I’m looking for some feedback from someone with more specific expertise to confirm or deny my gut reaction. Since I didn’t get any bites on the other thread, I thought I’d cast my bait out here and see if I could get a rise.
We’re having the 2nd hottest year of the instrumental record, ice is melting “faster than ever expected”, the ocean waters are warming up, etc., yet the oceans are not rising.
So I wonder who is telling us the truth, Hansen or reality?
Eyeballing since 2005, I see an increase trend of about 5 mm, i.e. 100 mm by 2100.
There was a similar, though shorter, plateau from 1997 to 2000. I wonder if we will get another jump coming soon.
IF THE FLATTENING CONTINUES FOR ANOTHER COUPLE OF YEARS, THEN THE AGW ALARMISTS ARE GOING FIND THEMSELVES IN CORNER.
I doubt La Nina’s and El Ninos play a role as these are more to do with surface temps and are probaly minor when compared with the entire ocean volume.
Anthony: Completely off topic but something you might want to have a look at:
http://www.anupchurchchrestomathy.com/2009/07/nuclear-reactor-that-nevers-needs-to-be.html
Malcolm (00:28:28)
Nasa data is highly subject to whim:) Love the global temps chart. They managed to smooth out any high temps till the last few years… we need those hottest on record news stories doncha know?
“The time series shows the combined global land and marine surface temperature record from 1850 to 2007.” Thats a pretty neat trick. I dont know the exact date temps of marine surface started, but Im pretty sure it wasn’t 1850.. do I smell a model.. why yes I do..
I can understand new data changing the past of the smoothed curve, but why has new data move the actual past data points? If you look at the start of the Jason data points they have been moved higher in the rel_3 graph. Is one of the graphs with the seasonal signals removed and the other one doesn’t have that adjustment?
I have that backwards, the rel_3 graph has them lower.