The University of Colorado at Boulder releases satellite based altimetry of sea level change several times a year. This graph below is dated December 15th according to the image timestamp.
If the previous schedule is any indication, they are now almost two months overdue. I’m not implying any nefarious motives whatsoever, but I’m wondering why it is overdue. Below is the update list. Sometimes a nudge helps. So let’s call this article a friendly nudge. I sent a query from their web page asking why, and hope to hear back soon.
Changes to each release since 2006 Release 3
2007 Release 1 (10/23/2007)
Uses the new TMR replacement product version 1.0 for T/P.
Uses GDR-B for all Jason-1 cycles.
Uses Don Chambers SSB model for T/P and the default SSB model for Jason-1 GDR-B.
Correctly applies the off-nadir pointing editing criteria of Jason-1 GDR handbook.
2007 Release 2 (12/03/2007)
T/P cycles 8 through 16 are computed by correctly applying the new TMR correction.
The one-cycle-off time tag shift error is fixed.
2008 Release 1 (01/16/2008)
Corrects an error in the non-IB GMSL that mainly affected the annual variation.
Resulted from using an IB-corrected MSS reference. The error is corrected by estimating
a local mean sea level from the non-IB data.
2008 Release 2 (05/29/2008)
Applies an ad hoc JMR correction for Jason-1 GDR-B cycles 1 through 227.
Applies 1.6 mm correction for the IB error for Jason-1 GDR-B cycles 94 through 142.
2008 Release 3 (09/08/2008)
For Jason-1, a bug is fixed to correctly interpolate the mean sea surface.
Jason-1 GDR Version B cycles 1 through 232 are used.
2008 Release 4 (12/11/2008)
Uses GDR-C for cycles 180, 184, 186-190, 193-194, 196-240, 244-246, and 248.
Updates GDR-B with GDR-C standards, e.g., GDR-C JMR, range correction, SSB model,
etc.
2009 Release 1 (02/13/2009)
Uses GDR-C for cycles 11, 14-16, 151, 153-157, 159, 161-164, 166-167, 171-173, 177,
180, 182, 184-190, 193-242, and 244-256.
2009 Release 2 (03/12/2009)
Fixes a bug in the implementation of 1.6 mm correction for the IB error for Jason-1
GDR-B cycles 94 through 142.
Updates with GDR-C cycles are 3-6, 9-10, 12, 21, 133-135, 138, 143-145, 158, 165,
169-170, 174, 176, and 257.
2009 Release 3 (07/17/2009)
Updates with more GDR-C cycles. Added Jason-2/OSTM GDR cycles 1-28.
2009 Release 4 (09/18/2009)
Newly added GDR-C cycles are 13, 17, 19, 25, 47, 53, 56, 65, 118, 123, 142, 148-150, 168,
and 183. Added Jason-2/OSTM GDR cycles 29-34.
2009 Release 5 (12/04/2009)
Includes all GDR-C cycles except 69, 82, 137, 139, 178-179, and 243.
Added Jason-2/OSTM GDR cycles 35-43.
2010 Release 1 (02/10/2010)
Now includes all GDR-C cycles. Added Jason-2/OSTM GDR cycles 44-50.
2010 Release 2 (05/06/2010)
Added Jason-2/OSTM GDR cycles 51-61.
2010 Release 3 (07/26/2010)
Added Jason-2/OSTM GDR cycles 62-66.
2010 Release 4 (10/06/2010)
Added Jason-2/OSTM GDR cycles 67-77.
2010 Release 5 (12/15/2010)
Added Jason-2/OSTM GDR cycles 78-82.
I can hear them hoping for a miracle from here.
A miracle isn’t going to cut it.
They are likely working feverishly to have a press release which provides a theory as to how global warming causes the sea level to drop.
There is no doubt that 2010 will be at least 2mm lower, but it could be more. That is going to be a hard sell.
These things take time… Especially when they don’t fit the plan.
thanks! i follow this graph and i was wondering the same thing. Unfortunately i have the feeling that since the data is becoming more politically incorrect that delayed sea height data may be delayed so that every effort may made to try to show increase not decrease.
Anthony, didn’t you hear? They are not late on purpose. They’re just busy plugging the holes where all of the seawater is leaking out. (must be the earthquakes they hypothesize).
☺
“I’m wondering why it is overdue. ”
I could speculate that they’ve been desperately dumping Viagra into the sea in hopes of getting a rise, but I won’t go there.
Anthony:
Can you do a quick curve fit with a polynomial? 2nd or 3rd order?
I think the least squares of that could yield a “leveling curve”. Which might be interesting to note!
Max
What are they going to do when a straight line no longer fits the data?
Surely nature wouldn’t dare show off some curves!
Yes, I can hardly wait. Now that GATA has been down sea-level rise deceleration is further evidence it is cooling, not warming. Last March, we had the “hottest March evah” and now it is cooling. Hmmmm. Not looking too good for the man-made CO2 is overheating the planet theory.
Are there any detectable changes in ocean levels after massive earthquakes centered out in the ocean like the recent one in Japan?
Global Warming has forced the extra Sea Water into the air….
warming air causes wetter air…
Jeeezzzz… can’t you all follow the AGW program..?
Inconvenient truth , maybe?
It’s a travesty that we can’t find the missing water. 🙂
I found the missing water with quick google…
The melting poles are now allowing the seawater to drip to the “inner earth”.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_0PJR9xmE9zE/TDOVGtIY66I/AAAAAAAAAFY/pll-8kJ7rCM/s1600/inner-earth-map.gif
Just believe.
You have it all wrong. The rise in beaver numbers has increased the rate of water retention and so the sea level would have risen if it wasn’t for those dam beavers……
MarcH says:
April 6, 2011 at 9:02 pm
What are they going to do when a straight line no longer fits the data?
Surely nature wouldn’t dare show off some curves!
If you download the data from http://sealevel.colorado.edu/results.php and plot the Jason and Topex data separately, you get two very different trendlines. Jason from 2002 until late 2010 shows much less than 3.1mm p.a. – it’s more like 2.5mm p.a.
Maybe they skipped a climate control pill?
Kelvin says:
It’s a travesty that we can’t find the missing water. 🙂
Don’t tell me… they’re trying to hide the decline!
It’s worse than they thought.
You are wondering why the delay, these figures just don’t change themselves you know.
C’mon Y’All!
They’ve had tons of snow in Colorado this winter. They’re probably just trying to get the last avalanche shoveled out of the path that leads to the computer shed, eh?
What’s needed is a new “trick”, a new hockey stick!
Do any other institutions monitor sea levels, or perhaps we can get the raw data and plot ourselves. If the answer is no to both questions there would be reason to suggest doubt.
The AMSU satellite temperature site also quit posting its daily updates for all altitudes in mid-December, 2010. Although it resumed posting the daily, 14,000 foot altitude temperature plot in early 2011. All other channels continue to report a data problem and “…processing suspended until resolved.” They’ve never answered my queries about the nature of the problem. Could this satellite problem be related to the UC level data shutdown?
Max Hugoson says:
April 6, 2011 at 8:59 pm
> Can you do a quick curve fit with a polynomial? 2nd or 3rd order?
I hope not! Polynomial fits can fit the range the cover quite well, but get questionable near the start and end points, and zoom off with extreme speed beyond the useful range.
Since you brought this up …
How do you measure sea level using satellites? It makes sense to measure temperature using satellites as you can look at the spectrum emitted. But sea level doesn’t seem to be something amenable to satellite measurement.
I’m especially curious about how the measurement can be to such a tight tolerance.
One plausible explanation is, that global warming causes the ocean water to boil and evaporate excessively, so the water hides up there and will haunt us soon. Was not there extreme rain in Pakistan?
Falling Global SSTs lead to a shrinkage in volume.
That alone should result in a sea level drop.
Maybe the Team got there first… they gotta hide the decline?
Hmmm, the icebreakers need to work overtime me think….
Greg
“last March we had the hottest evah”
“Maximum temperatures nationally were the coldest on record with a national anomaly of -2.19°C. Most of Australia recorded below average mean maxima with parts of the north and south of the country recording their coldest March on record” this is from http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/month/aus/summary.shtml
Kept very quiet on the ABC and MSM
At 3.1 mm since 1994 to 2010 that would make a rise of something like 49mm. Running that back to 1964, when I started mooring a boat here in the Mediterranean sea, we would be looking at something like 142mm.
My eyes and memory just will not buy this tripe anymore!
I inquired by email on March 10th and received no response. Maybe it went into their spam folder as it was my first time emailing them. Hope you have more success.
That time stamp may say December 15th, but they only show 270 days of data during 2010. The Jason satellites provide data every 10 days. Last entry shown is 2010.7415.
Here is an unofficial NOAA graph that goes through December. It has the seasonal/annual signal removed and inverted barometer applied.
http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLevelRise/LSA_SLR_timeseries_global.php
Credible “homogenization” takes time. Then there is the vetting of the crew to destroy the actual readings and to estimate impossible to verify readings from Baja, Tierra del fuego. South point Hawaii, and the Faroe Islands. All of which will prove a precipitous rise in sea level unobservable to anyone else.
Anthony, here are the updated figures – you may be using a redundant site.
A little scary as you can see ‘this new improved version’ shows a greater rate of sea level rise than previously, but most important and ominously it is clearly obvious a whole heap of data points on the chart have been/changed/manipulated/strangled.
But why?
http://crozon.colorado.edu/
I too have been watching that graph for months, waiting for an update. Last data point seems to be back in Sept/Oct time frame. Seeing that the recent El Nino correlated with a nice spike in the sea level and we currently are going thru a La Nina I suspect they do not want to show the data till the La Nina is gone. Problem is, if that is the case, and the sea level does not bounce back up to or near their black line, they are making their problem worse by delaying. How are they going to explain not showing the sea level change for 6 months or longer and when it finally comes out and shows a significant loss… whoa.
In Denmark DMI has never been able to measure the changes to global sea levels. At the same time Denmark’s underground is not very active – however still adjusting after the last ice age.
http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/index/klima/klimaet_indtil_nu/vind_og_vandstand_i_danmark.htm
Graph in the bottom of the page.
Am I right in the observation that a lot of the changes to the global sea levels are measured in the same places on earth as where underground activity is high? – or is it farfetched and wrong.
IF sea levels fall it means the death of CAGW, sea level rise was perhaps the main argument and justification for draconian taxes and action to curb atmospheric CO2.
IF the seas are not rising then CAGW is dead.
Here is another plot of sea level rise from 1993 to end 2010 I saved from a previous thread here http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html
So there is no reason why the University of Colerado graph has not been updated. The base information is obviously available and since other plots show a fall since mid 2010 it would look strange if UC presented something entirely different. They must have technical problems, but why do they not say so?
In looking at the sea level figures from http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLevelRise/LSA_SLR_timeseries_global.php
there appears to be a strong divergence between the Jason-1 and Jason-2 over the past 6 or seven months. http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLevelRise/slr/slr_sla_gbl_free_txj1j2_90.png
Jason-1 has gone strongly negative while Jason-2 has not. Maybe this has something to do with no update on the Colorado page.
Don’t forget that the data is not raw, it is calibrated against unnamed tidal gauges, i.e. the dreaded “adjustment”. If I recall, the raw Topex data, in particular, showed very little increase.
Given that the UC data graph is all Jason-1 data… I think the fact that Jason-1 has gone wildly negative since mid 2010 (as shown by the previous link) that pretty much explains why they havent updated it. They may be trying to come up with a valid reason how they can “hide the decline” by splicing in the Jason-2 data from mid 2010 and not showing (or deleting) the Jason-1 data.
@Peter Miller:
Scary. Just take a look at what happened to the 2006 spike, which was prominent in the previous version. Now they have “adjusted” it down for some reason. A tried and tested trick.
Maybe someone with competence could print the two graphs in the same grid, so we can see what has been done to the data here 🙂
Well it looks like I was wrong in assuming that they are only using Jason-1 data at UC so my previous post was incorrect. Based on the release notes they started adding in Jason-2 data. Wonder why they didn’t change the color of the squares or just add another series of points to the graph instead of averaging them (Im assuming that is what was done)?
Very funny Pamela Gray @9:54pm. Speaking from experience?
The data is in, they can’t believe sea levels could possibly fall. The data must be wrong. They’ve commissioned a brand new metre rule and will venture to the beach as soon as the radiation threat from Japan subsides. Elf n safety you know.
Back in the days I used to watch the HADCRUT temperature series (before climategate), there certainly was a correlation between temperature and date of release. I think it was about 1wk early for a 0.1C rise and of course 1wk late for a drop.
It was just all indicative of an organisation that had a completely overwhelmingly biased view on the results … that and the way you’d know a particularly low result was coming out, by the media storm they created to stoke up the commitment of the media to the warming hype … before releasing the fact – very quietly – that it was cooling.
@Petermiller
I overlaid the dec 2010 graph from the UC on top of the current one from http://crozon.colorado.edu/ as you suggested and yes indeed it does definitely appear to me as well that the prior data has been adjusted significantly to exaggerate the sea level rise. It looks almost like a linear adjustment to the data points, no adjustment in 1993 and ending with about a 5mm adjustment upward in 2010.
Perhaps they are still reading the previous research you posted which showed that the sea levels for the last 100 years was only 1.7mm/annum, according to the US tide gauges.
@Peter Miller
Thanks for the link.
The new graph seems visually at least quite different to the old one, but I can’t find notes about the changes. (It would be interesting to plot one vs the other). Also, on the new chart, the smoothed line has been below the linear trend for about the last 4 years. Which makes it odd that the new chart has a slope of 3.2 mm/yr and the old has 3.1 mm/yr.
If you look at the calibration page…
… you see that the JASON calibration has recently fallen off a cliff. After years of a small to medium positive calibration, it now has a large negative calibration. How this is measured I’m not clear, nor what consequences it has for the MSL estimation.
I sent an email to the folks up at CU asking when the website would be updated. This was on Feb 22, 2011. I received the following reply on Feb 23, 2011:
It simply amazing… the last UC graph from 2010 (seasonal signals removed) gives a 3.0mm per year rise since 1993. The UC data that was shown at http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLevelRise/slr/slr_sla_gbl_free_txj1j2_90.png which includes the 2011 sea level data results in a rise of 2.9mm per year since 1993 (seasonal signals removed).
The data now shown at UC shows an average rise of 3.2mm per year since 1993 (seasonal signals removed), suggesting that there has been a huge increase in sea level rise in the past 6 months which is clearly not the case. What is wrong with this picture?
Ummm….why does the chart imply that the temperatures TODAY are still being just as suppressed by the “nuclear winter” and need correcting?
oops, wrong browser tab 😀
OF COURSE it’s due to AGW…..
It’s so warm it’s evaporated………
Prove me wrong….go on…dares yer…
Why expect a steady sea level?
Is there ANY skilled geologist that would even think of stable sea level in a world with tectonic plate movements?
Is there a measurement of land level change made?
I bet that one would be showing much larger changes.
“…when I started mooring a boat here in the Mediterranean sea,…”
The Med is clearly connected to the world ocean, but has not got much in the way of tides, which would seem to help to even out sea level on a daily basis and make altimeter readings more uniform. However, the seasonal difference would still be problematic. The level of the Med is lower than the world ocean in summer because of high evaporation. I am not certain, but I would guess that the level of the Med is higher in winter because of inflow from rivers and evaporation that is lower than in summer.
So data from the Med would need to be smoothed in a different way from oceanic data.
Interesting the rate is about double the 1.5 mm/year estimated by Domingues and others in their 2008 paper in Nature, (http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/downloads/R733_nature07080.pdf)
The authors used a longer time-frame.
Very accurately. It is a really good way to measure sea level.
“Jørgen F. says:
April 6, 2011 at 11:35 pm
In Denmark DMI has never been able to measure the changes to global sea levels. At the same time Denmark’s underground is not very active – however still adjusting after the last ice age.
http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/index/klima/klimaet_indtil_nu/vind_og_vandstand_i_danmark.htm
Graph in the bottom of the page.”
I guess Jørgen F means that DMI have not observed any change to sea levels around Denmark as the graph shows. This confirms my suspicion that the sea levels have not changed. Every time I go back to my Danish home town I have seen no change to sea levels in 60 years.
Geoff Sharp says:
April 6, 2011 at 10:08 pm
Do any other institutions monitor sea levels, or perhaps we can get the raw data and plot ourselves.
The French seem to be a bit more up to date. AVISO (Archivage, Validation et Interprétation des données des Satellites Océanographiques) is a joint project of CNES (Centre National d’Études Spatiales – French equivalent of NASA) and CLS (Collecte Localisation Satellites). They have data up to 2011.038337 (January 14, 2011) while the University of Colorado at Boulder Sea level change site only has it up to 2010.7415 (September 28, 2010).
The two datasets are not directly comparable as they use different adjustments and these are poorly documented at both sites.
The delay may have something to do with the Bangkok summit. Most of the attendees are bleating on about sea level rises. No so relevant if the sea level is, ahem, falling.
@Cassandra King
One would think that falling sea level would be the death of CAGW, but we thought that about colder winters, recovering sea ice, no tropospheric hotspot, etc.
Now it will be “global warming will leave the world’s shipping ports high and dry as the oceans evaporate and destroy the global economy.” Or something.
It will always be something. Too many powerful people have too much money invested in this hoax for it to go away.
One graph has the inverse barometer applied (at least it does not say not), and has ‘seasonal signals’ removed.
Here’s one without that ‘trick’:
http://crozon.colorado.edu/content/current-global-mean-sea-level-trend-seasonal-signals-remaining
For the life of me, I cannot get 3.1 or the new (higher even though it’s still going down?) value of 3.2 mm / year. Eyeball and calculator give me 2.8 or 2.9, even on the black line. Actual data points from start to finish give me 2.6 mm / year.
I’m 95% certain that the missing sea water is currently “in the pipeline” in the deep ocean trenches.
I’m 4% sure that since the CO2 level is going up, the atmosphere is denser and is pushing the sea-level back down.
I’m 1% certain that I am 99% likely to be wrong.
Anthony,
When the evaporation machine is in full bore(like this winter) a great deal of water is picked up into the atmosphere.
Almost ALL of the northern hemisphere land mass was under cloud cover.
What have a few decades worth of sea level data got to do with anything?
PK Banerjee,reported greater than 1,000 mm fall in sea level during the Little Ice Age (Marine Geology, Volume 167, Issues 3-4, 15 July 2000).
He considered this minor! Should we not expect sea level to rebound by at least 1,000 mm in 300 years? Should we consider this a minor rise? Why not?
Why should sea level remain at a point convenient for people who want to locate cities near the sea coasts?
From the abstract, “…. The Holocene highstand reached nearly 3 m above LTL at 7.3 ka, remained stable for approximately 1.7 kyr and was followed by a relative sea level fall. Between 5.2 and 4.2 ka, there was a second pulse of relative sea level rise of a few metres leading to a fresh spurt in coral growth along the northern coast of Mandapam and Rameswaram [east coast of India]. This was nearly contemporaneous with fresh melting of ice sheets of Antarctica. The Little Ice Age (LIA) witnessed a minor (>1 m) relative sea level fall along this coast, resulting in rapid diagenetic hardening and infiltration of goethite into the emerged foreshore sand at Karikovil and its neighbourhood. This was followed by a rise of the sea level during the last few centuries.”
For non-scientists, the Holocene is roughly the last 10,000 years. Sea level has risen about 120-140 metres (450 feet), mainly from glacier meltwater entering the world ocean but also from thermal expansion of water.
Maybe, if the sea goes the wrong way, so does their funding:(
Delighted you have asked the question Anthony, however I won’t hold my breath.
My HADCRAP computer model indicates a sea level decline is to be expected as a result of over-fishing and the Gorian decline in polar bear numbers due to global warming. The decline of the polar bear has a twofold effect: less direct displacement of sea water due to declining numbers of polar bears in the water; and less indirect displacement due to less weight on floating sea ice.
Frank White: If the estimate of ~1 meter sea level drop during the LIA is correct, one really has to wonder what all the fuss is about – we’ve only regained 20-30 % of that so far! And even with 3mm/year, we’ll need another 250 years for the remaining, i.e. a total of about 550 years of rising sea levels – that’s probably a longer timeframe than the preceding period of dropping sea levels, i.e. a slower rate.
Aviso was put in charge in calibrating the new Jason2 satellite and, subsequent to that being completed, they have continued to be one of the main operators of the data and the satellites.
All of the maps, time series and data into January 2011 can be found here. They have also included data from the European satellite – Envisat – which is recording sea level rise of only 1.2 mm/yr (and a decline of 1.0 mm in 2010).
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/en/news/ocean-indicators/mean-sea-level/products-images/index.html
The water must be going SOMEWHERE! The warming is probably evaporating it, so that it’s now lurking somewhere in the atmosphere waiting to dump floods of water and excessive snow which will then melt and cause even more floods.
There! All
fiddledfixed!Here is a blink comparison.
http://bushynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/g3.gif
Now this is interesting: they took the most recent graph down again! Gone…
Perhaps they realized they were a bit heavy handed with the adjustments this time…
Batheswithwhales said:
“Maybe someone with competence could print the two graphs in the same grid,”
Here you are:
http://i56.tinypic.com/6zy1dw.gif
I can only find those two graphs. The “Global Mean Sea Level Time Series (seasonal signals removed)” graph does not display or is missing.
Anthony,
Did not the ARGO program also have to change ALL of their computer simulation for higher numbers due to the showing of temperature drops to the “warming” atmosphere?
[[[Batheswithwhales says:
April 7, 2011 at 5:21 am
Now this is interesting: they took the most recent graph down again! Gone…]]]
The chart is still available in the google cache:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:dM83MkVLoRAJ:crozon.colorado.edu/+http://crozon.colorado.edu/&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.com
I have personally spoken to the people at Boulder, and they have informed me that the hold up is due to some changes in staff. They have recently hired Dr James Hansen to perform some minor data adjustments to correct for previous errors, and Dr Michael Mann to write the new graphing function using more modern statistical methods.
Everything will be in order soon.
Thanks, from the Team.
Are we not making the mistake of enlarging a section of data to such an extent that we can no longer see perspective and context? If we had ALL the data instead of proxy reconstructions, there would be lots of little ups and downs in millennium data. These changes would be hardly visible to the naked eye on a graph and indeed no one would care, unless we chose a small section and enlarged it, then tossed the rest of the data away (as in, “Sorry, we didn’t keep the raw data”). We are now at the stage of panic that watching grass grow gets our knickers in a twist.
So, the best they can do is try to convince us a 3 to 4 mm rise per year will be the end of the world as we know it? Are there error bars on their estimates? I didn’t look too closely at the data. These fear mongers should look more closely at the relative risks between a 4 mm/yr rise in sea level and a 4 to 20 meters tsunami that just hit Japan. Just how many lives have been lost in the last century due to this 4mm/yr rise in sea level anyway?
Sorry for the rant.
The reason for the delay is because they invited Dr. James Hansen to perform some vital adjustments to the observed data. Expect a sharp rise in sea level.
This years unprecedented warm winter….
…made more moisture in the air
The moisture came from the oceans and is now locked up in snow.
..and they are still throwing explanations against the wall
…trying to make one stick /snark
??? Jaymam’s blink chart looks different then Bushy’s, especially the seasonal removed part. How many different versions are there? I prefer the seasonal chart as then January to January is visible. Everything may be fine, but if there is radical changes, not thourghly and logically explained, then perhaps a FOI request will be in order if the U of C is subject to such a request.
@Pamela
“Are we not making the mistake of enlarging a section of data to such an extent that we can no longer see perspective and context?”
Sure, but we must keep in mind that f.ex Rahmstorf predicts more than a meter sea level rise the next 90 years – so the level will have to skyrocket soon if he is going to be right. But we are seeing the opposite – deceleration. It must be a travesty to Rahmstorf each time the real numbers come out 🙂
@kbray in California
That’s not the one. That one says 2010. 5.
There was a graph up for a while marked 2011 rel 1, linked by Peter Miller above. I don’t know where it went, but it is not accessible anymore. ..
The coral island atolls are doomed by sea level rise. ;>)
Seasonal signals removed
http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLevelRise/slr/slr_sla_pac_free_txj1j2_90.png
Seasonal signals retained
http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLevelRise/slr/slr_sla_pac_keep_txj1j2_90.png
Classic. And of course, the comment thread is filled with assertions of something nefarious – but it’s just all a coincidence.
Say, Anthony, when did you stop beating your wife?
@Jimbo
Finally a version showing all of 2010, but there are so many versions, it is getting very confusing. Still an impressive drop there, all the way back to 2004 level, as predicted by some sceptics. But this didn’t show up in the 2011 release 1 that was up for a while. That one had an increase of 0.1 over “2010 release 5”. They are not exactly going out of their way to make their science understandable and user friendly.
Maybe it is time for a clarifying/educational post on sea level and its different representations….?
Joshua,
Instead of ad-homs, why don’t you just tell us why the data isn’t being updated?
The data is being updated so here is my updated plot: http://futurehistoric.wordpress.com/2011/04/07/sea-level-rise-hiatus-continues-for-the-moment/
I look at the UofC site every day to see if there has been an update. It seems to me that the last data on the chart is from June or July of 2010. This is April of the following year! Like Anthony, I have not concluded anything nefarious, but if a skeptic site of data had this type of delaly, the mainstream media would be screaming and suggesting scandal & manipulation.
Date Sea Level in mm
2010.7415 28.119
2009.7642 31.028
2008.7868 23.752
2007.7552 25.546
2006.7507 26.391
1.7mm in 4 years … terrifying.
I saved copies of the 2011 release 1 and a copy of the 2010 release 5 and overlaid them. In the 2011v1 they added a nearly linear rise of 5mm starting in 1993 and ending in 2010 to the 2011v1 data graph which explains why the trend increased from 3.0mm/yr from 2010v5 to 3.2mm/yr in 2011v1.
Also really strange why the 2011v1 doesn’t agree at all with http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLevelRise/slr/slr_sla_gbl_free_txj1j2_90.png
If the current data was plotted on a scale consistent with the sea level rise since the end of the last Ice Age, the soapbox would be dwarfed. Yawn.
Cold Lynx says:
April 7, 2011 at 2:08 am
as I said on another thread recently (and I am a geologist) – measuring sea level and relating it to AGW or just plain ‘warming’ requires an awful lot of other data. Sub-sea volcanic activity, changes in water temp and density, salinity, precipitation, glacial outflow, sediment deposition (e.g at river deltas), removal of groundwater by man (which then usually ends up in the sea!), air temperature, evapotranspiration rates, oscillatory currents, atmospheric humidity (water content), etc, etflippincetera – will all contribute to sea level variation in some way shape or form.
I fail to see how any direct measurement of sea level is necessarily an indication of actual sea volume change as many other factors can combine to cause the change – and in particular to your geological point – yes, I agree – how do you know that the seawater volume is changing (lets assume all other temp/density parameters are constant) if you do not actually know if the receptacle (i.e. the ocean basins) that are holding said seawater are probably changing? Then, if you add in the fact of isostatic rebound, plate tectonic movements, etc, we are not talking about a fixed ‘receptacle’!
If you take the earth as a closed system – and consider the water cycle, with water in given ‘zones’ – the ‘placement’ of the earths water can and will vary, with water temporarily in higher or lower amounts within the ocean zone, ground zone and air zone. A relatively minor change (e.g. winter to summer!) in any number of conditions can alter this ‘balance’ (no, I don’t think it is ever in balance, its just a figure of speech) with apparent changes in the measured ‘zones’. Logically, if you have a few zillion cubic kilometres of seawater volume, just changing the salinity, temperature or density by a tiny ‘smidge’ will cause a significant actual volumetric change but the actual ‘amount’ of seawater hasn’t changed at all!
I am usually not one for the quick sniper comments, but this one made me literally laugh out loud.
I only read it because Pamela posted it, and her comments are usually worth reading. Thanks Pamela!
rbateman says:
April 7, 2011 at 9:52 am
absoflippinlutely correct! but ‘scale’ is never a priority issue with alarmist propaganda!
Joshua
April 7, 2011 at 8:37 am
I’m not implying any nefarious motives whatsoever, but I’m wondering why it is overdue.
Classic. And of course, the comment thread is filled with assertions of something nefarious – but it’s just all a coincidence.
Say, Anthony, when did you stop beating your wife?
###
Classic. Brain dead greeny nonsense.
@rbateman
Me thinks you are deluding yourself if you don’t think people with a “prove it to me with data point of view” aren’t going to compare recently released data to the previously released to make sure everything is consistent and there is no “funny business or hide-the-decline” going on.
They must be hiding the decline.
OK, the graph came up again.
This time a little different again:
http://crozon.colorado.edu/
The 2011 release 1.
Ocean life in most locations has adapted to and tolerates two high and two low tides each day generally around 5-6 ft. in height. (even up to 50+ ft in the Bay of Fundy).
A few millimeters per year change sea level is clearly not a problem. Shore life already has adapted to regular variations in the pulsing seas of much greater variation than a few millimeters here or there. This extra water is insignificant in the big picture and in the daily tidal flux.
It’s amazing this few millimeters is being milked by CAGWarmers like a cash cow the way that it is…. ?got milk?…. yeah, it’s also “got gullibles”… lots of “gullibles”.
Why do all the Measurements all the way back to 1990 appear to be about 5mm higher then the Measurements were a few days ago,?
Have the people looking at the data been wrong for 19 ½ years?
Do they know what they are doing?
It there some other reason that might explain a 5mm rise in sea level that had gone unnoticed for 20 years?
I was hoping they would use the data since July 2010 to extend the graph, rather then using the data since July 2010 to change the past.
Those people doing the work for the last 19 1/2 years age must be feeling pretty dumb right about now. Good thing the new people caught their predecessor’s incompetent error.
I live on an Island off the coast of Maine, USA. I Captain a passenger ferry to the Mainland and back 10 times a day from a granite stone pier built in the late 1700s. If they were to measure sea level rise here, in inches, it would be about 2?? in 200 years?? should I believe them or my lying eyes? this does not even begin to take into account that we dredge about every 10 to 15 years just to keep it deep enough to get our boats into the pier.
Anthony;
Given the changes between the ‘current’ version of the historical record and the historical version of the historical record for this graph I think that it would be helpful if the use of this graph on the ENSO and Oceans reference pages included a blink comparison between the graph as it appeared yesterday and whatever theses people settle on as the ‘new and improved’ graph.
Visitors must be able to see climate science in action.
Sometimes you need a simple backrub, other times you need a deep tissue massage. The latter takes more time.
I notice the climate widget is still showing February C02 levels?
Pamela Gray says:
April 6, 2011 at 9:54 pm
Maybe they skipped a climate control pill?
And I missed reading your post! That explains everything.
Morning sickness. Egads.
The other agencies must be planning on throwing them a baby shower.
Prenatal checkups? They should’ve told us sooner.
Batheswithwhales says:
April 7, 2011 at 10:58 am
“OK, the graph came up again.
This time a little different again:
http://crozon.colorado.edu/
The 2011 release 1.
The previous graph had Reverse Barometer adjustment as well as Seasonal applied. New one has no Reverse Barometer and shows trend as 3.2+/-0.4 mm…
http://crozon.colorado.edu/sites/sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2011_rel1/sl_ib_ns_cu2011_rel1_global.jpg
This would probably go down to ~2.9+/-0.4mm with Reverse Barometer applied – perhaps they made an oversight?
I’m not sure the data set is much use anyway as they seem to make adjustments and calibration changes each time they publish the data and the joins between Topex – Jason1 – Jason2 are subject to a degree of arbitrariness I think. The algorithms used when producing the final model are also based on assumptions about how the system works and ‘confirmation bias’ can easily creep in.
Interesting that it looks like the NOAA trend has had the Reverse Barometer adjustment…
http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLevelRise/slr/slr_sla_gbl_free_txj1j2_90.png
If we can assume that Anthony’s link is one that he has used for a long time, and that it is not normal practice for the new graph to have a new address (see Peter Miller @11.26, April 6, 2011), then one might conclude that Colorado is hiding the results.
Many of us, and no doubt many teachers and others of influence, have saved links that we use to enable us to regularly look at graphs, but without always checking that the graph is up to date.
The UK Met Office is guilty of a similar slight of hand with its (HadCRUT3 global temperature graphs). At first sight everything looks fine with temperatures rising nicely, but a close look at the scale reveals a December 2009 cut-off. If you copy and paste the graph into some other document, the lack of warming will suddenly be revealed.
back in 2004, the rate of rise was 2.8 millimeters a year:
http://i29.tinypic.com/rm38lc.png
In 2005, it was 2.9 millimeters:
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/150218main_sealevel-browse.jpg
Even though the rate has obviously decreased during the last few years, the rate is now UP to 3.2 mm a year, according to Colorado:
http://crozon.colorado.edu/
It makes me wonder what “adjustments” have been made….
The sea level in the paleo record geologically abruptly increases and decreases 10m to 15m. (The paper I linked to conclusion concerning cause is incorrect.) Base on what has happened before sea level will drop. The change is driven by the sun. There are a set of solar anomalies and astronomical anomalies that are explained by the mechanism. The solar effect is what is causing satellite measurement of ocean level to not agree with direct measurement using tidal gauges. I would expect the satellite estimate of ice sheet mass will show an anomalous increase in mass based on how the satellite’s motion over the ice sheets will change.
The same solar mechanism is causing the increase in volcanic activity and earthquakes.
http://geochemistry.usask.ca/bill/courses/International%20Field%20Studies/Sea%20level.pdf
“… the pre-Last Glacial Maximum (pre-LGM) is characterized by substantial fluctuations in sea level of 10 to 15 m about every 6000 years. The timing of these rapid change events during oxygen isotope stage 3 (OIS-3) apparently coincides with Heinrich ice-rafting events recorded in North Atlantic sediments (61), which suggest that they reflect major ice discharges from continent-based or shelf grounded ice sheets (62). Of note is that sea level falls during this period occur in similarly short time intervals and the ice accumulation also appears to have been a rapid process (39).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v428/n6981/abs/nature02309.html
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/downloads/R733_nature07080.pdf
Taniwha says:
April 7, 2011 at 3:04 am
“How do you measure sea level using satellites?
Very accurately. It is a really good way to measure sea level.”
William says:
“How do you measure sea level using satellites?
Very accurately. It is a really good way to measure sea level.”
Unreal ! Well spotted. If you right-click and open the image on it’s own you see the Inconvenitent Truth !
You can see a similar “trick” in their climate guide. They show a temperature graph based on 2005 data ( aclaimedly one they produced for AR4). Because of smoothing windows the line stops at 2000.
Now if they’d done that once, a charitable mind may be ready to give the the benefit of the doubt and think it was an error.
Doing it twice in different ways with almost identical cut-off year makes it look just a little intentional .
http://crozon.colorado.edu/
link at bottom for raw data:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_ib_ns_global.txt
2010.3071 34.415
2010.3343 33.384
2010.3614 30.460
2010.3886 30.274
2010.4157 31.264
2010.4429 35.139
2010.4700 38.781
2010.4971 37.354
2010.5243 32.792
2010.5514 32.332
2010.5786 31.099
2010.6057 30.976
2010.6329 35.785
2010.6600 31.206
2010.6872 27.135
2010.7143 27.902
2010.7415 28.119
So it looks like there is another 6 months of data available since April. The graph how seems to show this and has a tag reading ” Updated: 2011-04-05″
It looks like they had already done the update a couple of weeks ago but had “forgotten” about it when Anthony rang them . LOL.
The new data shows sea level is oscillating down. Let’s keep watching the data. If it continues to oscillate down someone will write a paper to try explain what is observed.
As noted in this paper, the 20th century global aggregate sea level changes cannot be physically explained based on mass balance (ice sheets and glaciers melting) or based on expansion due to warming. The oceans are no longer warming.
What is observed is the volume of the ocean is changing rather than the mass of the ocean. Some other variable/forcing function is causing the ocean to expand and contract (i.e. Not temperature and not mass. Hint the ocean level changes track the solar cycle however the tracking can also not be explained by solar forcing of planetary temperature. What we are observing now is a larger effect that is a consequence of the abrupt change in solar cycle 24.)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v428/n6981/abs/nature02309.html
“The rate of twentieth-century global sea level rise and its causes are the subjects of intense controversy1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Most direct estimates from tide gauges give 1.5–2.0 mm yr-1, whereas indirect estimates based on the two processes responsible for global sea level rise, namely mass and volume change, fall far below this range. Estimates of the volume increase due to ocean warming give a rate of about 0.5 mm yr-1 (ref. 8) and the rate due to mass increase, primarily from the melting of continental ice, is thought to be even smaller. Therefore, either the tide gauge estimates are too high, as has been suggested recently6, or one (or both) of the mass and volume estimates is too low. Here we present an analysis of sea level measurements at tide gauges combined with observations of temperature and salinity in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans close to the gauges. We find that gauge-determined rates of sea level rise, which encompass both mass and volume changes, are two to three times higher than the rates due to volume change derived from temperature and salinity data.”
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/PastRecords.pdf
“Estimating future sea level changes from past records
In the last 5000 years, global mean sea level has been dominated by the redistribution of water masses over the globe. In the last 300 years, sea level has been oscillation close to the present with peak rates in the period 1890–1930. Between 1930 and 1950, sea fell. The late 20th century lack any sign of acceleration. Satellite altimetry indicates virtually no changes in the last decade. Therefore, observationally based predictions of future sea level in the year 2100 will give a value of + 10 +/- 10 cm (or +5 +/-15 cm), by this discarding model outputs by IPCC as well as global loading models. This implies that there is no fear of any massive future flooding as claimed in most global warming scenarios.”
“Fig. 2. Sea level changes in mm as recorded by TOPEX/POSEIDON between October 1992 and April 2000: raw data before any filtering or sliding mean average. The variability is high, in the order of +/- 5– 10 mm. From 1993 to 1996, no trend is recorded, just a noisy record around zero. In 1997, something happens. High-amplitude oscillations are recorded; a rapid rise in early 1997 at a rate in the order of 2.5 mm/year, followed by a rapid fall in late 1997 and early 1998 at a rate in the order of 1.5 mm/year, and finally, in late 1998 and 1999, a noisy record with unclear trends. The new factor introduced in 1997 and responsible for the high-amplitude oscillations, no doubt, is the global ENSO event, implying rapid redistribution of oceanic water masses (characteristic for mode III in Table 1). This means that this data set does not record any general trend (rising or falling) in sea level, just variability around zero plus the temporary ENSO perturbations.”
They were waiting on 4/20 for some creative thinking
John A’s excellent graph says it all. And..
Darren Parker says: April 7, 2011 at 6:06 pm
which is exactly what I was concerned about. I rather expect CO2 levels to track sea level rise. Now if the rise in both is slowing significantly, it really is the end of the current incarnation of AGW and the script needs to be rewritten. Well, Team, this is what you need:
And now can we have the latest figures please.
Looking back in time at their main page the graphic they present changes as they add more data on the right side… however they seem to stop plotting peak data points on a number of the graphs. I don’t know if that is just their plotting program settings or if it is an attempt of some form of manipulation, it is curious though. A detailed analysis should be done to see if the graphs have other hints of data manipulations of earlier data in later graphs. If they do they better have damned good and already well documented reasons for such mannipulations.
Also they don’t expand the size of the bit map at all, you think as they added data they’d make the bit map bigger but they don’t. The effect is that the slope of the sea level rise steepens. I find that this practice in climate science to be deceptive. In presenting information to humans you must keep the graph consistent in scale. Altering the x-axis scale as you add data will lead to misconceptions about the data. I’m surprised that scientists don’t know this, or maybe they do and take advantage of it. Clearly they should provide a version with the same scale if they wish to be honest and have scientific integrity.
A blink comparison movie of four graphs from sealevel.colorado.edu to visually compare the changes in plotting and data over approximately six years.
The four graphs are from 20040215, 20041223, 20060930, and 20100923.
http://youtu.be/cE1mXQkWIoU?hd=1
The video has a HD 720p quality for best viewing.
Looking back in time at the sealevel.colorado.edu main page the graphic they present changes as they add more data on the right side… however they seem to stop plotting peak data points on a number of the graphs. I don’t know if that is just their plotting program settings or if it is an attempt of some form of manipulation, it is curious though. A detailed analysis should be done to see if the graphs have other hints of data manipulations of earlier data in later graphs. If they do they better have damned good and already well documented reasons for such mannipulations.
Also they don’t expand the size of the bit map at all, you think as they added data they’d make the bit map wider but they don’t. The effect is that the slope of the sea level rise steepens. I find that this practice in climate science to be deceptive. In presenting information to humans you must keep the graph consistent in scale. Altering the x-axis scale as you add data will lead to misconceptions about the data. I’m surprised that scientists don’t know this, or maybe they do and take advantage of it. Clearly they should provide a version with the same scale if they wish to be honest and have scientific integrity.