Doing it yourself – the latest unsmoothed global sea level data from JASON shows a sharp downtick and slight downtrend

Steve from Rockwood says:
April 18, 2011 at 5:39 am
“[…]
…You wouldn’t quote the height of a person in microns, so why sea level in hundredths of millimeters? […]”
Good point, Steve, and for those folks out there not used to working in both metric and English units on a daily basis, 0.01mm is 0.0003937 inches. If the sea level changed by 0.03mm, how could anyone tell?

As noted below, the past rise in ocean level cannot be explained by either mass increase (ice sheets or glaciers melting) or due to thermal expansion. It appears something else is causing the volume of the oceans to increase. It appears the cause is the sun. Solar cycle 24 is an abrupt change in the solar cycle.
There is observational evidence that the sun produces a scalar field. (For example, there are changes in nuclear decay times on the earth that correlate with aphelion and perihelion, with a time lag. The time lag is indication that the mechanism is a scalar field as there is a time delay for the earth’s surface components to adjust to the change in the field.) The same mechanism explains why there is a significant increase in worldwide volcanic activity and earthquakes during deep solar minimums, as the potential of the deep earth adjusts to the new equilibrium.
If this hypothesis is correct there will continue to be a significant unexplainable drop in sea level. It appears the mechanism that creates sun spots and that equalizes the sun has been interrupted. There is evidence of cyclic abrupt changes (10 events spaced roughly 400 years apart) in the inclination of the geomagnetic field which is observational evidence that there is a sharp increase the scalar field on solar magnetic cycle restart. The effect of the solar magnetic cycle restart is dependent on the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit, the seasonal timing of perihelion, and the tilt of the earth’s axis. The strongest events produce geomagnetic excursions, such as the geomagnetic excursion that occurred during the Younger Dryas event or during past terminations of interglacial periods.
http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283v1
Evidence for Correlations Between Nuclear Decay Rates and Earth-Sun Distance
“The preceding considerations, along with the correlations evident in Fig. 4, suggest that the time-dependence of the 32Si/36Cl ratio and the 226Ra decay rate are being modulated by an annually varying flux or field originating from the Sun, although they do not specify what this flux or field might be. The fact that the two decay processes are very different (alpha decay for 226Ra and beta decay for 32Si) would seem to preclude a common mechanism for both. However, recent work by Barrow and Shaw [12, 13] provides an example of a type of theory in which the Sun could affect both the alpha- and beta-decay rates of terrestrial nuclei. In their theory, the Sun produces a scalar field which would modulate the terrestrial value of the electromagnetic fine structure constant EM. This could, among other effects, lead to a seasonal variation in alpha and beta decay rates, both of which are sensitive to EM [14]. We note from Fig. 3 that the fractional difference between the 226Ra counting rates at perihelion and aphelion is approx. 3 × 10−3, and this would require that the coupling constant k of to EM should be k (alpha) approx. 3 × 10^6.”
ftp://falcon.grdl.noaa.gov/pub/bob/2004nature.pdf
Mass and volume contributions to twentieth-century global sea level rise
“The rate of twentieth-century global sea level rise and its causes are the subjects of intense controversy1–7. Most direct estimates from tide gauges give 1.5–2.0 mm/yr, 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 0.5mmyr21 (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.”
These past cyclic sea level changes are too rapid and too large to be explained by changes to continental ice sheets. (Note the sea level drops and then increases by 10 to 15 m.)
Sea Level Change Through the Last Glacial Cycle
“Furthermore, the pre-LGM period 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 suggests that they reflect major ice discharges from continent-based or shelf grounded ice sheets (62).”
Lightning Alaska’s Redoubt Volcano
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/04/photogalleries/volcano-lightning-pictures/
April 14, 2009–Lightning, which often accompanies large eruptions, illuminates a giant ash cloud from Alaska’s Redoubt Volcano, southwest of Anchorage, in a March 28 picture by an amateur astronomer. (See daytime pictures of the Redoubt Volcano eruption.)
“We don’t always get lightning [when a volcano erupts],” said Steve McNutt, research professor of volcano seismology at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, who was involved in the project. “And that’s one of the things we’re trying to figure out.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081215121601.htm
“Boundary Between Earth’s Upper Atmosphere And Space Has Moved To Extraordinarily Low Altitudes, NASA Instruments Document
During the first months of CINDI operations the transition between the ionosphere and space was found to be at about 260 miles (420 km) altitude during the nighttime, barely rising above 500 miles (800 km) during the day. These altitudes were extraordinarily low compared with the more typical values of 400 miles (640 km) during the nighttime and 600 miles (960 km) during the day.”
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/BardPapers/responseCourtillotEPSL07.pdf
“Also, we wish to recall that evidence of a correlation between archeomagnetic jerks and cooling events (in a region extending from the eastern North Atlantic to the Middle East) now covers a period of 5 millenia and involves 10 events (see f.i. Figure 1 of Gallet and Genevey, 2007). The climatic record uses a combination of results from Bond et al (2001), history of Swiss glaciers (Holzhauser et al, 2005) and historical accounts reviewed by Le Roy Ladurie (2004). Recent high-resolution paleomagnetic records (e.g. Snowball and Sandgren, 2004; St-Onge et al., 2003) and global geomagnetic field modeling (Korte and Constable, 2006) support the idea that part of the centennial-scale fluctuations in 14C production may have been influenced by previously unmodeled rapid dipole field variations. In any case, the relationship between climate, the Sun and the geomagnetic field could be more complex than previously imagined.”
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL027284.shtml
Geomagnetic excursion captured by multiple volcanoes in a monogenetic field
“Five monogenetic volcanoes within the Quaternary Auckland volcanic field are shown to have recorded a virtually identical but anomalous paleomagnetic direction (mean inclination and declination of 61.7° and 351.0°, respectively), consistent with the capture of a geomagnetic excursion. Based on documented rates of change of paleomagnetic field direction during excursions this implies that the volcanoes may have all formed within a period of only 50–100 years or less. These temporally linked volcanoes are widespread throughout the field and appear not to be structurally related. However, the general paradigm for the reawakening of monogenetic fields is that only a single new volcano or group of closely spaced vents is created, typically at intervals of several hundred years or more. Therefore, the results presented show that for any monogenetic field the impact of renewed eruptive activity may be significantly under-estimated, especially for potentially affected population centres and the siting of sensitive facilities…”

Or have I misunderstood the precautionary approach ?
Maybe … 🙂
the most common use of the precautionary principle is the assumption that a trend will continue to a catastrophic consequence unless something is done now to save us …
in the case of a “scientist” who hides data all we have is a single event with which to judge a persons actions by … to assume he will continue to hide data without a trend would not be using the precautionary principle … now if it happens twice in a row then you can make that leap … be careful though, with your tongue in cheek you can bite it when you land …

>>RomanM (is that 1000?)
>>Don’t you think that someone might have noticed a
>>full 1 C drop in mean global SSTs?
Well world sea temperatures have lowered by 0.3 degrees in the last year. And to what depth is that measured? If it is to 100 meters, then you will have all the contraction and lowering of sea levels you need, to fit this 8mm drop.
.

>>
DeanL says:
April 18, 2011 at 5:37 am
Well, I predicted you’d do just this in your post about the missing sea level data.
<<
Fortune tellers who predict past events are historians.
Jim