Guest post by John Kehr
Based on the most current data it appears that 2010 is going to show the largest drop in global sea level ever recorded in the modern era. Since many followers of global warming believe that the rate of sea level rise is increasing, a significant drop in the global sea level highlights serious flaws in the IPCC projections. The oceans are truly the best indicator of climate. The oceans drive the world’s weather patterns. A drop in the ocean levels in a year that is being cited as proof that the global warming has arrived shows that there is still much to learned. If the ocean levels dropped in 2010, then there is something very wrong with the IPCC projections.
The best source of sea level data is The University of Colorado. Only government bureaucracy could put the sea level data in one of the places farthest from the ocean, but that is where it is. I use both data sets that includes the seasonal signal. So with and without the inverted barometer applied. This is the source of the data that is used to show that the oceans are rising. Of course the rate of rise is greatly exaggerated and if the rate from 1993-2010 is used there will be a 1m rise in the year 2361.
Of course the rate is not constant. The rate of rise over the past 5 years has been half the overall rate. At the rate of the past 5 years it will be the year 2774 before the oceans rise a single meter. Of course a decrease in the rate is technically an negative acceleration in the rate of rise, so technically the rate of rise is accelerating, but in a negative direction. That statement is misleading though as most people consider acceleration to be a positive effect.
Sea Level Change
Even more interesting is the fact that from 1992-2005 there was an increase each year. 2006 was the first year to show a drop in the global sea level. 2010 will be the 2nd year to show a decrease in sea level. That is correct, 2 of the past 5 years are going to show a decrease in sea level. 2010 could likely show a significant drop global sea level. By significant I mean it is possible that it will likely drop between 2-3 mm from 2009. Since the data has not been updated since August it is difficult to guess more precisely, but the data ends at the time of year that the seasonal drop begins to show up. If the drop does show up as expected it is possible that 2010 will show the largest drop in sea level ever recorded.
2010 could show a significant drop in sea level from 2009.
Of course what will happen won’t be known until the data for the past 5 months is made available. I have been patiently waiting for the data to be updated for several months now, but I got tired of waiting and decided to put the information I have out there.
One fact is certain. A drop in sea level for 2 of the past 5 years is a strong indicator that a changing sea level is not a great concern. In order for the IPCC prediction to be correct of a 1m increase in sea level by 2100, the rate must be almost 11 mm/yr every year for the next 89 years. Since the rate is dropping, it makes the prediction increasingly unlikely. Not even once in the past 20 years has that rate ever been achieved. The average rate of 2.7 mm/yr is only 25% of the rate needed for the IPCC prediction to be correct.
This is yet another serious blow the accuracy of the official IPCC predictions for the coming century. The fact that CO2 levels have been higher in the last 5 years that have the lowest rate of rise than the years with lower CO2 levels is a strong indicator that the claims of CO2 are grossly exaggerated.
=========================================================
John Kehr runs the website The Inconvenient Skeptic – I recommend a visit. – Anthony
Can anyone explain how sea level is measured, for example what is the prime method. I’ve never been able to successfully google quality information on this topic.
I’m convinced that sea levels can be estimated but I remain totally unconvinced that they can be accurately measured.
In the “old days” they used records from tide gauges. The problem with tide gauges is that they don’t tell you whether the sea is rising or the land is subsiding. Tide gauge records have to be isostatically adjusted to account for geological uplift and subsidence.
Since the early 1990’s, satellite based altimetry (Jason, TOPEX) have been used to actually measure the elevation of the sea surface on a global scale.
I can’t go along with the questioning of the accuracy of satellites. The biggest errors are caused by local effects such as tides, air pressure, ocean currents and winds that cause the sea level to change dramatically around the average in any one location. Moreover that average itself will not necessarily reflect the global average.
I do not know how sea level is measured but I would be surprised if less than a million measurements were made each month. By taking such a huge sample across the globe most of the geographic and climatic uncertainties would be averaged out. In so doing random measurement error is also averaged out. A systematic error could remain but calibration is a simple process given the availability of fixed points on the land to use as a height reference.
So sub millimetre accuracy for the measurement of the average is quite possible. However looking at the scatter of the plots it looks like the actual measured variable is not too stable and that is no surprise either. It is because of this instability and not the measurement that I think we need to look at the pattern and not the detail (as the post does). As such the pattern is entirely expected. The Argo measurements show little or no warming in the past decade and the sea level agrees with this. Personally I try not to fall into the same trap as the warmists and read too much into a small amount of data but the facts seem pretty clear.
Tim Spence says:
January 17, 2011 at 9:13 am
Can anyone explain how sea level is measured, for example what is the prime method. I’ve never been able to successfully google quality information on this topic.
I’m convinced that sea levels can be estimated but I remain totally unconvinced that they can be accurately measured.
—
Here’s how they do it (you can try this too).
Take a meter stick with millimeter graduations on one side, and wade out a predetermined distance into the ocean at your favorite beach shore location. Bend down and, where the water surface meets the meter stick, carefully observe the sea level at that point (you can round off the level indicated to the nearest millimeter). Record this value. That’s it. :^)
ATTN: Cedar Hill and Robert of Ottawa
RE: Short Service life of CFL
The service life of a CFL or incan. light bulb (ILB) depends on the duty cycle, on the position of the device in and the type of the lighting fixture, and on air temperature and circulation.
A CFL has service life rating (SLR) of 10,000 hours while a ILB has a SLR of 1000 hours. These values are only valid for constant service (i.e., constantly “On”) with the base down and the device not enclosed such as in milk glass diffusing globe, with an air temperature of about 70 deg F and adequate ventilation, and with a stable current and applied voltage.
You can easily disassemble a CFL with a knife blade by inserting it in the gap between the top cap and base and twisting the blade to pry the plastic pieces apart. Lift up the coil base and cut off the leads from the circuit board at the entry points into the glass spiral bulb.
You can remove the threaded metal base by prying the metal, a little bit at a time, away from the plastic base. Lift up the circuit board assembly and cut the leads off from the metal base at the circuit board. The lead for the hot contact of the metal base has a small fuse enclosed in heat shrink tubing. Note solder in and lead button contact of metal base.
Note mass of solder on the solder side of the circuit board.
Now check out the circuit board and its components. All other things being equal, the CFL is very enviromentally unfriendly due to the amount of metal and materials used such as copper, tin, lead, iron, and zinc and of doped silicon in the transistors and diodes. Note wire-wound resistors and transformer.
The big question is: How long does a CFL last if most of the duty cycles are short? For example, how many times is a CFL in the main bathroom of house with four occupants turned on and off in 24 hours? Probably alot.
How do voltages fluctuations and power surges affect the service life of CFL?
If the CFL is installed upside down in a recessed lighting fixture or in a white glass diffuser hanging near the ceiling of hot kitchen, how does it last?
Since most CFL’s are made in China, how much fossil fuel is use to make them? There is a lot more glass in a CFL than a ILB, and more raw heat is need to bend and form the thick glass spiral.
Some final comments about ILB’s. There are two types of ILB’s for different service orientations. For horizontal service the filament is parallel to the long of the bulbs. these type of bulbs are used mostly in traffic signal lights, banker desk lamps, aquariums, etc.
For vertical or upside service the filament is perpendicular to the long axis of the bulb. The filament is can be a short arc or have a circular form.
Using a clear ILB inside a diffusing and opaque device affors more light as compared to a frosted ILB.
Ecotretas says:
January 17, 2011 at 3:29 am
Interesting graph. Perhaps there was a ‘climate shift’ in 2006?
I believe the most recent Church and White paper that is often quoted as the authority on SLR did not account for ground water pumping and in fact corrected the SLR data the opposite direction for ponding (dams). Therefore reducing SLR by .8 mm is a huge correction. I can image the the fighting between the glacier, ice shelf alarmists and the thermal expansionists over what is left. I still put the most credence on tidal gauges located near stable cratons away from river deltas like many places in Australia which tend to show about 1.2 mm per year over the last century.
Wonder how they’ll hide *this* decline.
The ability to measure the sea level with accuracy like this is fairly new. I can’t find the details that I read through once, but the ability was an unexpected discovery that re-opened the study of the sea levels.
The only way for the sea level to be static is for there to be no retention of rainfall. So perhaps 50 million years ago it was stable. As long as there is ice sheets or glaciers growing or shrinking on land, the sea level will always be changing.
That it was trending up indicates there was warming, but the trend has changed and appears to be reversing. This would point towards a natural cycle. It would also indicate that beachfront property will always be risky business.
“cal says:
January 17, 2011 at 9:25 am”
You have to understand how satellites remain in orbit, they vary ALOT. If we can get “brown outs” (I am suuming not “weather” related) with satellite TV, how come the same cannot be applied to “weather satellites”? They use the same technology after all!
If sea-level is falling, I’d think the ocean-heat content would also have fallen — temp is proportional to density.
Stay tuned for re-run of attempted manipulation of the OHC data from the ARGO network to “hide the decline”.
I blame the hole BP made in the gulf of Mexico for the drop of the sea level. The drop is exponential, by the year 2100 sharp the oceans will disappear.
Big oil is always guilty. Follow the money.
P.S. Dear BP, I haven´t received last month´s paycheck 😛
There is a big uncertainty how much pumping of ground water and fossile water contributes to sea level rise. There are contributions to sea level rise when the ground water level is permanently lowered. Or when fossile water layers are opened. Numbers of estimates are: total pumped water is 1200 km3/year (would correspond to 3.5 mm rise/y). Out of that 300 km3/y are estimated as permanent effects (1mm/y). But nobody knows hard numbers. People in arid countries pump for growing food, who should blame them. Then there is evapotranspiration of the food plants and the rain water ends in the ocean.
Can we wait hundred years, before hard data are taken?
“The Warmists may take away our Life, our Liberty, our Persuit of Happiness, but they will never take away our Sense of Humor.”
When the World starts weighing you down, you just gotta’ laugh.
John Kehr – how about rerunning your graph as I suggested to Middleton above with two regression curves one up to and including 2003 and the other starting with 2003 and including the latest 2010 numbers. Thanks Norman
John Stover says:
January 17, 2011 at 6:06 am
Typo in your post:
Of course there are some fiddly bits since the satellite and the earth are both moving…
‘Of course there are some fudgy bits…’
There, corrected it.
Pascvaks says:
January 17, 2011 at 10:27 am
…..and “He who laughs last laughs better”
BTW: Buy more popcorn!
Well, obviously if the ocean levels lower then it means global warming is worse than we thought and a bunch of water has evaporated away – probably into space of course since we won’t be able to detect it in the atmosphere since “our observing system is inadequate.”
Oh god, if someone actually says that in print then I’ll probably die laughing.
Re: Jerry from Boston says:
January 17, 2011 at 6:41 am.
Jerry, may you please provide the reference for that study done past year and published (or to be published)? Thanks.
It’s the “saucer people”. They don’t have any oceans of their own, so they’re sending saucer-tankers down under cover of darkness to steal our oceans. The saucer-tankers bring in loads of snow to dump on us before picking up their sea-water cargo for the return trip. It been very cold in saucer-land and they’ve been covered up with the white stuff ever since they quit burning fossil fuels.
Claude Harvey says:
January 17, 2011 at 11:10 am
It’s the “saucer people”. They don’t have any oceans of their own, so they’re sending saucer-tankers down under cover of darkness to steal our oceans. The saucer-tankers bring in loads of snow to dump on us before picking up their sea-water cargo for the return trip.
—…—…—…
An interesting question in radiative physics. If they export saucers of cold as snow and ice does the saucer planet get warmer or colder – figuring the net albedo effect and all those many “tipping points”?
Can we export warmth to the saucer planet on Obama’s Chicago carbon exchange market for tax credits if we are not actually exporting carbon but are importing water and water vapor to make up for the lowering ocean levels? Do the saucer people get the carbon credits of THEY are not selling carbon offsets, but ARE offsetting carbon by adding water vapor; or does THEIR added water vapor HERE create new tipping points and positive feedbacks here AND there?
How many new grants can Buzz get us to study the situation here?
Patrick Davis says:
January 17, 2011 at 2:53 am
Actually, I live in Portsmouth and right at the top of Portsmouth harbour is Portchester Castle, details here – http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/daysout/properties/portchester-castle/
It was built initially by the Romans (what have they ever done for us?) and next to it they would moor their ships. If you go there now, guess what you’ll find? Yes, boats moored there – no sea level change AT ALL in two thousand years! Of course the level of the land may well have changed, but surely that’s the point – the land in many parts of the world goes up and down far more than the average sea level.
A method used to smooth out cyclical data (like sunpots fro example) is a moving average with a window of the period of oscillation, it would be interesting to see the data filtered as such to remove the cyclical oscillations.
When I shift to 2003 and use most recent 2010 data, I get basically the same result.
Pre-2003: 3.43mm/yr
2003-2010: 2.26mm/yr
Seems to correlate with the drop in OHC…
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/knox-douglass_fig1.png?w=552&h=453
I’d like to see a update of the OHC graph taken to the end of 2010, next to the SLR graph.