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
From Mars, Peru
Digging around that site, however, I found this:
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/en/news/ocean-indicators/mean-sea-level/products-images/index.html
Some spike. And the La Nina only set in about mid-year last year. It’s only now making itself apparent worldwide.
Hmm…
That web site seems to go to a default page for some reason.
This is what I had in mind.
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/images/news/indic/msl/MSL_Serie_MERGED_Global_IB_RWT_GIA_Adjust.png
As I said, some spike.
(To the Mod: Thanks for fixing my ham-handed blockquote….again. :))
[De nada. ~dbs]
“This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”
~Obama
Guess that means we should be thanking Obama now, right? /sarc
John M says:
January 19, 2011 at 3:00 pm
“That link takes us to a pretty map indicating the last update was in March 2010.”
If you download the data using the “Download the data (ASCII)” button, you find as the last data point:
“2010.821157: 5.767729e-02”
The month in question can be calculated as follows:
.82*12= 9.84 ,
meaning that this data correponds to late September(9) 2010
In late september 2010 the La Niña was near its bottom (between October and November 2010). The sea level, at least until late September 2010, has no responded (in the AVISO data) to the 2010-2011 La Niña as did with the 2007-2008 La Niña, when there was a (temporary) drop in sea level.
The September 2010 spike is evident in the graph that includes the seasonal signal:
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/images/news/indic/msl/MSL_Serie_MERGED_Global_IB_RWT_GIA_NoAdjust.png
The spike is the combination of the trend plus the seasonal spike of late Northern Summer. What is surprising is that the last data points are well above the maximum reached last year. In late 2007, the sea level barely reached the level seen in late 2006, because of La Niña.
The current La Niña should have caused the same effect, but for some reason, it hasn’t.
Maybe is just an error in the preliminary data, maybe the ocean in late 2010 is behaving in a different way than in 2007.
Ahhh. So now we’re supposed to use data that include seasonal signals to determine climatic trends. Thanks for the tip. I’ll have to remember that…er….trick.
I just went the source of the data linked at the top of the article and looked at the altimeter calibration against tide guages.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/calibration.php
There’s a significant swing in 2009-2010 . Has the Jason satellite has taken a bump or has someon adjusted the tide gauges ?
The scale of this adjustment seems “unprecedented” in the 30 years of the record.
John M says:
January 20, 2011 at 3:31 pm
“Ahhh. So now we’re supposed to use data that include seasonal signals to determine climatic trends. Thanks for the tip. I’ll have to remember that…er….trick”
Did you even read what I said after the link?
“The spike is the combination of the trend plus the seasonal spike of late Northern Summer. What is surprising is that the last data points are well above the maximum reached last year. In late 2007, the sea level barely reached the level seen in late 2006, because of La Niña.
The current La Niña should have caused the same effect, but for some reason, it hasn’t.”
The seasonal signal has no effect in the trend. Since this WUWT post is NOT about trends, but about a possible drop in sea level last year (that is, in late 2010), I showed a link to AVISO showing that there is a spike, not a drop, entirely consistent with the sea level rise trend of 3.2 mm/yr (plus the seasonal signal, of course).
My point is that, unlike in 2007-2008, the sea level is not dropping, quite the opposite!
Do you get it?
Mars Man,
Yes, I do get it. You searched far and wide to find one highly smoothed graph with 2 or 3 magic points that you think constitute a “spike”. It’s sort of like dendrochronology where 2 or 3 magic trees can make a hockey stick.
Congratulations, you found the needle in the haystack.
For those more interested in the haystack.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_ib_ns_global.jpg
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_global.jpg
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_ns_global.jpg
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_ib_global.jpg
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/images/news/indic/msl/MSL_Serie_MERGED_Global_IB_RWT_GIA_Adjust.png
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html
John M says:
January 22, 2011 at 1:02 pm
“Mars Man [why Mars?, I am from Peru],
Yes, I do get it. You searched far and wide to find one highly smoothed graph with 2 or 3 magic points that you think constitute a “spike”.”
Evidently you don’t get it. This post was called “Sea level may drop in 2010”. So far, it was not the case. AVISO shows a spike instead of a drop (it is a small spike, but still a spike, not a drop).
“It’s sort of like dendrochronology where 2 or 3 magic trees can make a hockey stick.”
Again mocking dendrocronologists? If you don’t like tree rings, look at the ice core data. You will still find a hockey stick, unless you “hide the incline” chopping off the last 100 years of warming as Don Easterbrook done in a recent post on WUWT.
“Congratulations, you found the needle in the haystack.”
That needle (AVISO) is the most updated dataset. When CSIRO and the University of Colorado update their data (or possibly AVISO adjust downward the last data points) we will see how sea level behave in those datasets to compare.
Theoretically, there should be a drop in 2010 given the strong La Niña. So far there are no hints of a drop, but quite the opposite, in AVISO data.
Why Mars? Only because I found myself dancing around the maypole with someone named “from mars” a while back. Similar writing style, similar line of argument.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/19/associated-press-gone-wild-2010-disaster-article-is-unadulterated-trash/#comment-554946
If you say that’s not you, I’ll stop using it.
In the meantime, you can continue to use your preferred data.
Whether or not sea levels fall this year is not my argument anyway. You just caught my attention with that “spike” thing. It is however clear that there are no signs of the sea level trend accelerating.
And ice cores don’t absolve dendrochronologists manufacturing hockey sticks form tree rings.
John M:
It is true, I put sometime ago “from mars”, then I decided that is better to put my accurate (Earthly) position. Compliments for your intuition, but please call me “from Peru”.
Now use your ingood intuition to note that I used the AVISO data not because I liked it (I used to look at CSIRO data, until someone give me a link to AVISO) but because it is to date the most updated dataset. I am, and I suppose you also, waiting for the updates on CSIRO and the University of Colorado.
You said:
“Whether or not sea levels fall this year is not my argument anyway.”
But is the argument of this WUWT post.
” You just caught my attention with that “spike” thing.”
Because in the most updated data (AVISO) there IS a spike.
“It is however clear that there are no signs of the sea level trend accelerating.”
I do not suggest that sea level rise is accelerating. I just supported with actual data the fact that sea level rise is not slowing, but continuing at a near constant rate (with some ups and downs due mainly to ENSO).
“And ice cores don’t absolve dendrochronologists manufacturing hockey sticks form tree rings”
Please give me a link to a study that shows that the tree-ring paleoclimate proxies studies are flawed. And if they are flawed, why ice core data agrees with tree ring reconstructions?
“Please give me a link to a study that shows that the tree-ring paleoclimate proxies studies are flawed. And if they are flawed, why ice core data agrees with tree ring reconstructions?”
How many links do you want? I could just point you to http://climateaudit.org and let you fend for yourself, but this pretty much nails the granddaddy of them all.
http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf
And before you start with the revisionist history, make sure you explain this:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_house_hearings&docid=f:31362.wais
You realize of course that your last sentence is a logical fallacy. Just because the pyramids are alligned with the stars doesn’t mean they were put there by ancient astronauts. And if you want to find a fig leaf in the last sentence in the North quote above, you can hardly claim that using the wrong method leads to higher confidence in the study.
But as long as you keep mentioning it, please show me an ice core study that looks like this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hockey_stick_chart_ipcc_large.jpg
It is after all the “perfect” shape of this hockey stick that made it the darling of the global warming community. The various subsequent “spaghetti charts” hardly support this “perfect” shape.
John M says:
“But as long as you keep mentioning it, please show me an ice core study that looks like this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hockey_stick_chart_ipcc_large.jpg”
Want an ice core that makes a hockey stick?
See the GISP2 ice core data:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/metadata/noaa-icecore-2475.html
Plot the result. You found something like this:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/easterbrook_fig5.png
But the GISP2 ice core data ends in 1905. That’s 105 year ago!
What has happened in all those years?
Well a nice graph is here:
http://www.meltfactor.org/blog/
In the graph is clear that Greenland warmed significantly between the 1910s and the 1930s, then cooled between the 1930s and the 1990s and finally warmed a lot after 1995, until the record-smashing 2010.
The decade 2001-2010, the warmest on record in Greenland looks like this:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2010&month_last=12&sat=4&sst=1&type=anoms&mean_gen=0112&year1=2001&year2=2010&base1=1900&base2=1905&radius=250&pol=reg
Between 2ºC and 4 ºC of warming since the decade 1900-1910!
The hockey stick emerges when you combine the ice core data with the instrumental record.
We are back to levels seen in the Holocene Thermal Maximum (HTM) and the Minoan Warming Period, and between 1ºC and 3ºC warmer than the Medieval Warm Period!
None of those are global or even hemisphere-wide many of them are only for a couple of hundred years.
The tricky dendrochronology we’re talking about, which I guess I missed with regard to your original diversion with ice cores, involves global or hemispheric trends on the order of 1000 years.
I guess that makes your original claims about ice cores = tree rings even more of a fallacy.
“We are back to levels seen in the Holocene Thermal Maximum (HTM) and the Minoan Warming Period, and between 1ºC and 3ºC warmer than the Medieval Warm Period!”
Absolutely ridiculous.
Smokey says:
January 24, 2011 at 4:55 pm
““We are back to levels seen in the Holocene Thermal Maximum (HTM) and the Minoan Warming Period, and between 1ºC and 3ºC warmer than the Medieval Warm Period!”
Absolutely ridiculous.”
As usual, you are hiding the incline. Your timeseries ends in 1905, 105 years ago!
See what has happened in all those years in Greenland:
http://www.meltfactor.org/blog/?p=294
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2010&month_last=12&sat=4&sst=1&type=anoms&mean_gen=0112&year1=2001&year2=2010&base1=1900&base2=1910&radius=250&pol=reg
From Mars,
You are to science as astrology is to astronomy, living in the illusory dream world of your fevered imagination.
105 years ago the global temperature was only 0.7° below today’s temperature, making the MWP still much warmer than today.
The chart I posted, based on real data published in a peer reviewed journal, says it all. Run along back to your realclimate echo chamber, where they believe your ridiculous globaloney.
Smokey says:
January 25, 2011 at 9:39 am
“From Mars,
You are to science as astrology is to astronomy, living in the illusory dream world of your fevered imagination.”
What a perfect decription of yourself, as usual. Psychological projection at work!
“105 years ago the global temperature was only 0.7° below today’s temperature, making the MWP still much warmer than today.”
We are talking about GREENLAND. GREENLAND!
Greenland is not the whole planet Earth. There any warming and cooling that happens on Earth is AMPLIFICATED. The Global average temperature anomalies are measured in tenths of a degree, but in the ARCTIC (where GREENLAND is) the temperature anomalies are measured in full degree units. See this MAPS and then comment:
Anomalies with respect to 1951-1980
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2010&month_last=12&sat=4&sst=1&type=anoms&mean_gen=0112&year1=2001&year2=2010&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=reg
Anomalies with respect to 1900-1910:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2010&month_last=12&sat=4&sst=1&type=anoms&mean_gen=0112&year1=2001&year2=2010&base1=1900&base2=1910&radius=1200&pol=reg
Please note that while GLOBAL temperatures in 2001-2010 are 0.77ºC warmer than the 1900-1910 average, ARCTIC temperatures (see the Greenland area) are between 2ºC and 4ºC warmer than the 1900-1910 average
“The chart I posted, based on real data published in a peer reviewed journal, says it all.”
It is a good chart, but do NOT show modern global warming because it ends 105 years ago. You are misrepresenting the data used in that chart, chopping off the last 105 years of warming! (that years are found in the instrumental temperature data)
“Run along back to your realclimate echo chamber, where they believe your ridiculous globaloney.”
Mr Smokey, you are the one that make ridiculous claims. I just posted what the DATA show, you are comparing apples (Greenland temperatures) with oranges (global temperatures).
Mars says:
“Greenland is not the whole planet Earth. There any warming and cooling that happens on Earth is AMPLIFICATED.”
Is ‘amplificated’ a realclimate word? Is the warming robustly amplificated?
Anyway, nothing refutes the graph I posted. So now you want to take the position that Greenland is only in one hemisphere? OK, here’s Vostok. Now we have both hemispheres covered.
I see you’re an acolyte of Michael Mann and his debunked Hokey Stick chart, where the handle of the stick is straight, until recently when it curves up so scarily. Too bad for you the Hokey Stick has been thoroughly debunked. Believe in it if you like, but it’s just not true. Even Mann grudgingly admits it now. [Even though he mumbles when he has to say the words.]
Although it’s hidden by the instrumental data, Mann ’08 is the only one showing a huge temperature spike in recent decades — which goes away if you drop the upside-down tiljander sediment proxies [!!] and the stripbark trees. That paper, with its upside-down proxy [which Mann knew about before he published] shows the rampant corruption in the climate peer review industry.
And when you say, “You are misrepresenting the data used in that chart, chopping off the last 105 years of warming!”, I’d like you to find me some recent ice cores. See, as I’ve explained to you before, it takes time for the snow cover to compact into ice.
And regarding your tenths of a degree global temperature record, try reading the recent WUWT article on the metrology of thermometers. There is no way anyone can reliably determine temperatures to within one degree C — much less a tenth of a degree.
I don’t know why I waste my time. [I guess for the same reason I like to pull the wings off flies.☺] Because the null hypothesis completely debunks the CO2=CAGW conjecture. Despite all the red-faced arm waving climate alarmism, nothing out of the ordinary is happening. Nothing. It’s natural variability in action, and Mother Gaia is laughing at the alarmist crowd.
Smokey:
I am not talking about the proxies used by Mann. I am talking about temperatures in Greenland, that have warmed between 2ºC and 4ºC in the last century, are you denying that?
Are you denying the results of these meteorological stations?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/findstation.py?datatype=gistemp&data_set=1&name=&world_map.x=290&world_map.y=41
Note that the temperature variations showed there are not in the order of tenths of a degree, are in the order of several degrees.
Your question:
“Is ‘amplificated’ a realclimate word? ”
Nope. It the english word that describes what is happening in the Arctic.
“Is the warming robustly amplificated?”
I do not know what you mean by “robust”, but certainly it is clear from the temperature measurements that any climatic change in the planet, either warming or cooling, occurs in the Arctic at a rate many times bigger: in the last 100 years the warming was 0.7ºC in the globe, 3ºC in Greenland. Or are you perhaps blinded?
Finally you show your refusal to think by saying:
“And when you say, “You are misrepresenting the data used in that chart, chopping off the last 105 years of warming!”, I’d like you to find me some recent ice cores. See, as I’ve explained to you before, it takes time for the snow cover to compact into ice.”
Yes the ice has not yet compacted, but you have actual temperature measurements fro weather stations. Just check the weather station data that I linked above. It is such a difficult concept to undestand?
If you can’t, then really I am wasting my time with you.
Martian from Peru,
Since it’s been shown recently that no thermometer used by the USHCN is calibrated, and that the error tolerance is 2° – 4° or more on a properly calibrated thermometer, and furthermore, the fact that all “adjustments” are either upward, or long past “adjustments” are lower, making the rise look scarier, you’ll understand if I question the credibility of organizations that are financially rewarded, and their corrupted scientists given job security, for showing more global warming – whether it’s real or not.
Then you complain because Greenland is only one region; a capricious argument that shifts with the winds. We’re talking about global temperatures, not regional. And I reject the claim that Grenland is warming as a result of AGW, unless you can provide verifiable evidence that all locations above the Arctic circle are warming as much. They’re not, which debunks your ‘amplificated’ conjecture.
As Bob Diaz says in a current WUWT thread: “Weather is NOT climate, except when someone wants to use it to prove that CO2 Climate Change is real.”
I’ve shown that the null hypothesis remains unfalsified, which is a falsification of the alternative CO2=CAGW hypothesis. And I’ve shown that the climate peer review process is hopelessly corrupt; it hand-waved through Mann’s ’08 paper that knowingly used an upside-down proxy in order to get a hockey stick shaped graph [the Tiljander sediment proxy].
Thus, the CO2=CAGW hypothesis has been reduced from a hypothesis to a mere conjecture; an opinion. Score another win for scientific skepticism.
Smokey says:
January 25, 2011 at 6:33 pm
“Martian from Peru,
Since it’s been shown recently that no thermometer used by the USHCN is calibrated, and that the error tolerance is 2° – 4° or more on a properly calibrated thermometer, and furthermore, the fact that all “adjustments” are either upward, or long past “adjustments” are lower, making the rise look scarier, you’ll understand if I question the credibility of organizations that are financially rewarded, and their corrupted scientists given job security, for showing more global warming – whether it’s real or not.”
So for you in the world does not exist a single temperature record that is trustworthy, because “the error tolerance is 2° – 4° or more on a properly calibrated thermometer” , that is, nobody has any idea of the actual temperature of any place. How then the weather reports show temperature readings with a precision of at least a degree?
“Then you complain because Greenland is only one region; a capricious argument that shifts with the winds. We’re talking about global temperatures, not regional.”
Nope. The GISP2 ice core is in Greenland, so we are talking about temperatures there.
“And I reject the claim that Grenland is warming as a result of AGW, unless you can provide verifiable evidence that all locations above the Arctic circle are warming as much.”
See here:
Temperature anomaly (2001-2010)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2010&month_last=12&sat=4&sst=1&type=anoms&mean_gen=0112&year1=2001&year2=2010&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=reg
Every location in the Arctic area that has a weather station show warming greater than the global average.
For 2006-2010, the Arctic temperatures are even higher than for 2001-2010:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2010&month_last=12&sat=4&sst=1&type=anoms&mean_gen=0112&year1=2006&year2=2010&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=reg
Do you see it, or are you blinded?
“They’re not, which debunks your ‘amplificated’ conjecture.”
Arctic amplification is NOT a conjecture, it is a actual observation.
“I’ve shown that the null hypothesis remains unfalsified, which is a falsification of the alternative CO2=CAGW hypothesis.”
Any respectable hypothesis must be explicitly formulated. You have not shown what that “null hypothesis” is nor any evidence in favour of whatever it is. What is your “null hypothesis” you talk about so much?
Smokey:
You said before:
“And I reject the claim that Grenland is warming as a result of AGW, unless you can provide verifiable evidence that all locations above the Arctic circle are warming as much. They’re not, which debunks your ‘amplificated’ conjecture.”
If you don’t trust thermometers, that show widespread warming in the Arctic, maybe at least you trust RSS satellite measured temperatures:
http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html
See the red areas (trend: 0.3 to 0.5 ºC/decade) over the Northern Latitudes, that show a warming a a rate equal to several times the global trend of 0.16ºC/decade as measured by RSS.
This confirms Arctic amplification as observed by meteorological stations. Arctic amplification is a fact we know by observation. Calling it a “conjecture” is nonsense.
From Mars,
It is a waste of time trying to educate someone who suffers from cognitive dissonance, and who cherry-picks regions of the globe. Hey, I can chery-pick, too: click
See? Global temperature is falling.
Mars says: “What is your “null hypothesis” you talk about so much?”
Anyone who needs to ask that question will never understand the concept — which has been explained many times here on WUWT over the past couple of years. There have even been articles about it in 2011. I’m through trying to explain the scientific method to a true believer, who thinks that normal temperature fluctuations are some sort of catastrophic runaway global warming crisis. They’re not. But then you don’t even understand the elementary concept of the climate null hypothesis.
The atmosphere and oceans are behaving normally. Nothing that is happening is outside of historical norms. But when someone tries to point out that indisputable fact to you, they get this response. Cognitive dissonance, and it’s rarely curable. Your On/Off switch has been wired around, and you can’t shut off your unreasonable fear of CAGW.
Finally, you’re getting way off topic. This article is about the sea level dropping.
I’m moving on to the current WUWT page. You get the last word here, so chatter away off-topic with your realclimate globaloney. I’m tired of matching wits with an unarmed person. Say Hi to the folks on Mars for me, OK? Thanks.☺