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
R. Gates says: January 17, 2011 at 1:12 pm
What I see a disconnect on is AGW skeptics looking at short-term cycles and trying to draw any conclusions about long-term warming from anthropogenic GHG.
You mean like focusing on Arctic sea ice for less that a full 60-100 year cycle?
HIDE THE DECLINE!
<i?See – owe to Rich says: January 17, 2011 at 2:57 pm
Someone asked why there is a clear seasonal effect, and no-one answered. It is because the Earth’s orbit is elliptical, with perihelion in January. That means that at this time of the year the Earth captures more of the Sun’s heat than in July, so the southern oceans warm by more than the northern oceans cool. This causes a sea level spike in the early months of the year (with a lag).
I wondered if anyone was going to answer that question. I was guessing the snow cover in the NH winter might be related.
to quote General melchett –
“If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through. “
DO NOT FEED THE LAZY TEENAGE TROLL!!!
Study him to learn his devious methods. Like in his comments on the absolute accuracy of satellites measuring sea level into one single global figure, he leave out waves, tides, moon’s deformation of the goeoid, orbit pertubations, etc, etc while trying to sound scientific by repeating one simple proper statement easily Googled on radars. Don’t feed him.
But here’s a stick to poke him with. ☺
Golly Gosh it’s obvious what’s happening – the oceans are evaporating.
New research shows that if global warming is not reversed this minute the oceans will be gone by 3011. This trend is probably already irreversible
R. Gates
But the models say it should be accelerating and should have been accelerating the last 10 years. It isn’t and it hasn’t been. AGW is, again, falsified.
kwik says:
January 17, 2011 at 3:14 pm
Your entire country is full of cliffs going straight into the sea. How can anyone possibly be worried about sea level rise?
Well this is certainly easily understood. A devilish confabulation of Trenberth’s “hidden heat energy” reappearing from the deepest depths of the ocean in the hottest year in the whole history of years has literally boiled the sea off. Those bazillions of tons of water are now forming themselves into a serpentine atmospheric stream headed for Sacramento! Embattled governor Jerry Brown will have to raise taxes 20,000% in order to sop up the water in an environmentally sensitive way and to cover the “force majeure” pay claims of the WWBOSMI (World Wide Brotherhood of Slop Moppers International).
President Obama will give Republicans a scolding on the need for civility in the face of this enormous American-engineered environmental apocalypse, and demand that Chevron Oil cough up ONE TRILLION BUCKS to pay for this, since, as it is headquartered in San Francisco, it is obviously responsible and it’s his duty “to kick ass.”
I would think all the recent rain like in Queensland would have a much bigger effect on sea level drop than a hundred years ago before dams were built. Somebody on WUWT pointed out that this La Nina and the troposheric temperature drop from a year ago (.96 degrees C today) must have wrung out of the atmosphere a lot of water.
Dave Andrews says:
January 17, 2011 at 2:01 pm
R Gates,
Where do you get your conclusions about long term warming resulting from AGW? Only today new research has apparently shown the effects of the deep ocean , such as the Marianas trench, on CO2 capture. This was a totally unknown phenomenon but you still persist in believing that the science is settled!
_______
I never have said the science is settled. Please don’t put words in my mouth. I’ve only said the it is more likely than not that AGW is occurring. There is still much we do not know, and that makes science exciting– especially when dealing with a system as complex and on the edge of chaos as the climate– you can EXPECT surprises.
_____
#
#
Richard M says:
January 17, 2011 at 4:52 pm
R. Gates says: January 17, 2011 at 1:12 pm
What I see a disconnect on is AGW skeptics looking at short-term cycles and trying to draw any conclusions about long-term warming from anthropogenic GHG.
You mean like focusing on Arctic sea ice for less that a full 60-100 year cycle?
___
Oh, so now the skeptics think they’ve identified a 60-100 cycle of Arctic sea ice? Please provide the peer reviewed research on that.
Arctic sea ice is declining because the Arctic is warming and the Arctic is warming because CO2 and other GHG’s are at their highest levels in thousands of years…but please, let’s take a look at this “60-100 cycle” as researched and documented in the peer-reviewed journals.
____
mike g says:
January 17, 2011 at 6:30 pm
R. Gates
But the models say it should be accelerating and should have been accelerating the last 10 years. It isn’t and it hasn’t been. AGW is, again, falsified.
_____
Mike, you would do well to understand the difference between AGW Theory and Global Circulation Models or Global Climate Models. They are far from the same thing, and simply because the models are not perfect (nor could they ever be when dealing with a system on the edge of chaos), that does not in any way invalidate the basic premise that increasing GHG’s (initiated by CO2, but including water vapor and methane) will warm the planet. You will also do well to actually study some of the models and understand that they don’t all use the same basis, and none of them predict a straight linear relationship between rising GHG’s.
LazyTeenager said on January 17, 2011 at 4:15 am:
Thus a spurious warming trend, brought about by slight warming during sampling, has lead to a “spurious cooling trend” when the measurements got closer to reality?
What’s happening ain’t exactly as you put it. As found on the notable Seafriends site, from Dr. J. Floor Anthoni comes this about ocean temperatures:
Thus the changeover from measurements using buckets to measuring water inlet temperatures would have yielded a false warming, as the change was from measuring cooler surface water to warmer deeper water.
But as both the Argo floats and the water inlet readings are measuring temperatures under the cooler surface film, there should be no spurious cooling trend noted.
Matching like to like, satellite measurements can be matched to bucket-based measurements, water inlet can be matched to the appropriate Argo readings. Other match-ups should have adjustments, if you can get agreement as to what they should be.
@LazyTeenager:
“..trying to produce a very definite conclusion from the visual inspection of a small short term change at the end of a slow long term trend. That can’t be done.”
Once again, spoken like a true AGW Skeptic. Welcome to the fold!
Seriously though, the conclusion of this article is that, damagingly to IPCC predictions, the rate of sea level rise is not currently increasing. If you didn’t get that then perhaps you should read the article again.
If you are trying to make the point that between an arbitrarily chosen set of dates representing a blip on the geological timescale, it is possible to extrapolate a trend and assert (without evidence) that it is linear, your comment is irrelevant to the conclusion of this article. It is also tautological.
I’ve heard the statement “sea level rise is accelerating!” parroted ad-nauseum by AGW proponents. The information presented in this article shows this statement to be false (tempted to use ‘unequivocally’ there!)
Please shout if you need a definition of the term ‘accelerating’.
LazyTeenager says:
January 17, 2011 at 4:15 am
John Marshall says
——–
According to the Argo date set ocean surface temperatures are falling. It follows that there will be a thermal shrinking of this water thus lowering sea levels.
——–
I may follow that up, but does this relate to the change over from ship temperatures to more and more Argo bouys being deployed? Apparently the ship temps are slightly warm due to the sampling process. This in turn gave a spurious cooling trend.
Ship temperatures? It didn’t take you lot very long to think up that lame excuse! Bit of Friday afternoon job, I dont think even the MSM would fall for it. OHC as measured by the Argos floats is falling down to 700m depth – not much room for influence of your ship temps.
Other evidence of increased deep mixing and strengthened THC includes the following Nature publication:
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081129/full/news.2008.1262.html
In the context of sharp stratification of ocean temperature downwards with depth, any increase in vertical mixing will move heat down and cool the upper layer. The upper oceans are cooling.
“Ship temps!” You couldn’t make it up.
Lazy teenager
Have you any idea at all as to how sea surface temperatures were historically measured from ships? The process is completely laughable as any sort of scientific measure.
Perhaps you would like to give us your version of the process that enables the official figures to be accurate to hundredths of a degree ?
Tonyb
For some reason I can hear groundskeeper Willie’s voice warning us:
“ooooh, it will drop now, laddy, but like a bow and arrow it will only go back so far before it shoots forward with immense power!!!”
Where on earth did all that water go to? Damn those deniers, how did they do it this time?
Hahahaha, is this post serious? Come on Kehr, you’ve done some statistics and you’ve actually looked at the IPCC projections haven’t you? INCLUDING the uncertainty and interannual variations? Either you haven’t, or you’ve simply ignored it and made up your own ‘facts’.
IPCC sea level rise projections are less than a metre by 2100, although this should be a minimum bound due to dynamic ice sheet processes. They are not a linear increase. The last 20 years rate of sea level rise has been 80% faster than the 20th century average. If it stays at the current rate of 3.1 mm/yr from the full length of data it will be 31 cm this century, bang in the middle of the _actual_ IPCC projections and not disagreeing with them.
Matter says:
January 18, 2011 at 4:40 am
Hahahaha, is this post serious?
IPCC sea level rise projections are less than a metre by 2100, although this should be a minimum bound due to dynamic ice sheet processes. They are not a linear increase. The last 20 years rate of sea level rise has been 80% faster than the 20th century average.”
Really, hard to see that here. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png
It is not hard to find all the “scientist” and reporters warning of a possible 1 meter rise, or far greater.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
January 17, 2011 at 7:43 pm
LazyTeenager said on January 17, 2011 at 4:15 am:
John Marshall says
——–
According to the Argo date set ocean surface temperatures are falling. It follows that there will be a thermal shrinking of this water thus lowering sea levels.
——–
I may follow that up, but does this relate to the change over from ship temperatures to more and more Argo bouys being deployed? Apparently the ship temps are slightly warm due to the sampling process. This in turn gave a spurious cooling trend.
Thus a spurious warming trend, brought about by slight warming during sampling, has lead to a “spurious cooling trend” when the measurements got closer to reality?
______________
I have considerable experience with ship’s temperatures. I can tell you that if anything ship’s temperatures under record sea surface temperature. Thus the comment “Apparently the ship temps are slightly warm due to the sampling process. This in turn gave a spurious cooling trend.” is wrong!!
I am concerned that warmists wish to downward adjust these temperatures. Whilst I have a dislike for adjusting any temperature record (prefering simply to know how and the context in which it was taken), if there is to be an adjustment it should in fact be an upwards adjustment.
Let me explain. Ship’s temperatures are taken in the inlet manifold of the cold sea water cooling duct. Whilst each ship has a slightly different design primarily depending upon its size, the sea water inlet is drawn at a depth 0f between say 8 to 15 metres below the surface. A depth of around 11 to 12 meteres below the surface could be regarded as typical. Accordingly, surface temperature is not being measured but rather sea temperature at a depth of about 11 to 12 meteres is being measured. As everyone knows, generally, water temperatures cool with depth and hence a measurement of temperature drawn from a depth of 11 to 12 metres would be expected to record a lower temperature than one taken at or near the surface.
Further, sea temperature may be under recorded in the logs. Many ships carry what are termed heated cargoes (various types of oil cargoes – particularly veg oils) which require the ship to heat the cargo to stop it solidifying. The ship owner gets paid for heating when he heats. Of course with very warm tropical seas, cargoes cool slower and the natural prevailing sea water temperature may be sufficient to keep the cargo free flowing such that much heating may not be required. It is therefore in the ship owner’s interest to record sea water temperatures slightly lower than those truly prevailing so that he can claim and charge for heating when in fact no heat is being applied. I am not saying that the practice is uniform throughout the shipping industry but it certainly does occur. Thus a number of ships are recording/reporting a lower temperature than that actually experienced.
Accordingly, for these two reasons, there is reason to believe that temperature records provided by ships under assess/under record the sea surface temperature. That being the case, sea temperatures may have decreased even more than the ‘team’ (or those closely connected with them and/or supporters thereof) are prepared to accept.
Hector M. says:
January 17, 2011 at 11:05 am
C:\Documents and Settings\Owner\My Documents\Global Warming\Sea Level\Rising sea levels attributed to global groundwater extraction.mht
I hope this helps. Good luck.[ that won’t work . . the link I mean]
The graph with the 60 day smoothing shows quite regular drops in sea level and 2010 shows no real difference to the drops of 2006, 2003, 2001, 1998 and 1997.
The graph also clearly shows a linear increase in sea level from 1994 to 2010 so I’m not really sure what the point of this article is.
Am I missing something or is it trying to show that despite short term drops in sea level the general trend is a up?
Quite refreshing for this website I must say!
thegoodlocust says:
January 17, 2011 at 2:19 pm
R. Gates says:
“What I see a disconnect on is AGW skeptics looking at short-term cycles and trying to draw any conclusions about long-term warming from anthropogenic GHG. If the sea level doesn’t continue going up on a decade over decade basis, that might be interesting, but to make any analysis about AGW based on short-term cycles, whether ENSO, PDO, solar, or what have you quite invalid.”
Well, Mr. Gates, I see a disconnect between global warming alarmists who conveniently ignore that fact that the sea level has been rising for the past 6000 years and yet somehow, despite this happening for the entirety of human civilization, the current rise is unprecedented and due to human activities.
Oh wait, the rise is “accelerating,” that has always been the cry of alarmists, and yet where is the proof? The claim is that the rise is accelerating, but if the opposite is occurring then that is more than simply “interesting” – it is yet another example of the failed predictions of the AGW movement being ignored.
—————————
Have a look at Figure 3a in this paper on sea level.
You’ll notice that it is certainly increasing at an accelerating rate and the time scale that it is taken at will certainly require more than year or two’s data to slow it down to what it was in the late 1800’s.
Forgot to include the paper:
http://academics.eckerd.edu/instructor/hastindw/MS1410-001_FA08/handouts/2008SLRSustain.pdf
Mike, while it may seem funny (given the hysteria of the AGW movement), it is serious. There are many ports that would become useless to modern ocean traffic with a drop of just a few inches in sea level. Think of the Inland ports like Philly and Richmond.