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,
“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”
Compliments! You found the other side of Greenhouse warming, the side that neither the sun nor ocean cycles can explain: STRATOSPHERIC COOLING!
“Anyone who needs to ask that question will never understand the concept — I’m through trying to explain the scientific method to a true believer,(…) But then you don’t even understand the elementary concept of the climate null hypothesis.”
You are not explaining anything, you are showing only half truths, turning evidence for global warming into evidence against (such as tratospheric cooling), and talking about a “null hypothesis” without saying what your null hypothesis is, and when asked for that, you refuse to answer.
I have not seen any paper on climate science mentioning a “null hypothesis”. As far as I know, a null hypothesis is a statement that there is no actual relationship between variables, so it is a statistical concept. So, what are your variables? What do you mean when you say “climate null hypothesis”?
Talking about the scientific method, it do not consist on half truths (such as your mutilated graphs) or personal attacks (like the ones you sistematically do against me. This only show that you have no arguments). It is about theories, hypothesis and observations that could support or challenge them.
The best way to follow science is to read and discuss scientific papers. And unlike you, I posted links to data and scientific papers. If you were to really follow the scientific method, we could be talking about the data, methods and conclusions in those scientific papers.
This post was about an alleged “drop” in sea level. I posted a link to the most up to date dataset, AVISO, that show that the opposite is true. I am still waiting the updates of CSIRO and the University of Colorado to see if the AVISO results are confirmed or not.
Anyway, the rates of sea level rise since the satellite altimetry began are so far following the worst case scenario of the IPCC, see this paper:
Recent Climate Observations Compared to Projections
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Nature/rahmstorf_etal_science_2007.pdf
Here is is found:
“The satellite data show a linear trend of 3.3 ± 0.4 mm/year (1993–2006) and the tide gauge reconstruction trend is slightly less, whereas the IPCC projected a best-estimate rise of less than 2 mm/year. Sea level closely follows the upper gray dashed line, the upper limit referred to by IPCC as “including land-ice uncertainty.”
Now, what is your “null hypothesis” about sea level rise, and how it compares with observations?