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.
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.