From the NASA Jet Propulsion Lab

NASA Satellites Detect Pothole on Road to Higher Seas
An Update from NASA’s Sea Level Sentinels:
Like mercury in a thermometer, ocean waters expand as they warm. This, along with melting glaciers and ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica, drives sea levels higher over the long term. For the past 18 years, the U.S./French Jason-1, Jason-2 and Topex/Poseidon spacecraft have been monitoring the gradual rise of the world’s ocean in response to global warming.
While the rise of the global ocean has been remarkably steady for most of this time, every once in a while, sea level rise hits a speed bump. This past year, it’s been more like a pothole: between last summer and this one, global sea level actually fell by about a quarter of an inch, or half a centimeter.
So what’s up with the down seas, and what does it mean? Climate scientist Josh Willis of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., says you can blame it on the cycle of El Niño and La Niña in the Pacific.
Willis said that while 2010 began with a sizable El Niño, by year’s end, it was replaced by one of the strongest La Niñas in recent memory. This sudden shift in the Pacific changed rainfall patterns all across the globe, bringing massive floods to places like Australia and the Amazon basin, and drought to the southern United States.
Data from the NASA/German Aerospace Center’s twin Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (Grace) spacecraft provide a clear picture of how this extra rain piled onto the continents in the early parts of 2011. “By detecting where water is on the continents, Grace shows us how water moves around the planet,” says Steve Nerem, a sea level scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder.
So where does all that extra water in Brazil and Australia come from? You guessed it–the ocean. Each year, huge amounts of water are evaporated from the ocean. While most of it falls right back into the ocean as rain, some of it falls over land. “This year, the continents got an extra dose of rain, so much so that global sea levels actually fell over most of the last year,” says Carmen Boening, a JPL oceanographer and climate scientist. Boening and colleagues presented these results recently at the annual Grace Science Team Meeting in Austin, Texas.
But for those who might argue that these data show us entering a long-term period of decline in global sea level, Willis cautions that sea level drops such as this one cannot last, and over the long-run, the trend remains solidly up. Water flows downhill, and the extra rain will eventually find its way back to the sea. When it does, global sea level will rise again.
“We’re heating up the planet, and in the end that means more sea level rise,” says Willis. “But El Niño and La Niña always take us on a rainfall rollercoaster, and in years like this they give us sea-level whiplash.”
For more information on NASA’s sea level monitoring satellites, visit: http://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/ , http://sealevel.colorado.edu , http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/ and http://grace.jpl.nasa.gov/ .
h/t to WUWT reader “Pete”
==========================================
[UPDATE by willis]
I trust that Anthony won’t mind if I expand a bit on this question. NASA adduces the following map (Figure 2) showing where they claim the water went.
Figure 2. GRACE satellite changes in land water. Note that for all of the screaming about Greenland melting … it gained ice over the period of the year. In any case, red and blue areas are somewhere near equal, as would be more apparent if they didn’t use a Mercator projection that exaggerates the blue area in the Northern hemisphere.
The sea level was going up at about 3 mm per year. In the last year it fell about 6 mm. So that’s a change of about a centimetre of water that NASA says has fallen on land and been absorbed rather than returned to the ocean. But of course, the land is much smaller than the ocean … so for the ocean to change by a centimetre, the land has to change about 2.3 cm.
To do that, the above map would have to average a medium blue well up the scale … and it’s obvious from the map that there’s no way that’s happening. So I hate to say this, but their explanation doesn’t … hold water …
I suspected I’d find this when I looked, because in the original press release the authors just said:
“This year, the continents got an extra dose of rain, so much so that global sea levels actually fell over most of the last year,” says Carmen Boening.
When people make claims like that, with no numbers attached, my Urban Legend Detector™ goes off like crazy … and in this case, it was right.
Best to all, thanks to Anthony.
w.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

@Nuke
I have but she either blocks the post or claims that it is not important.
Jason Calley says: @ur momisugly Bob Tisdale, Willis said “one of the strongest La Niñas” but you are criticizing him as if he said “the strongest La Niñas”. Surely you understand the difference”
You’re right. I overlooked the “one of”. I should have written:
The 2010/11 La Nina may have been one of the strongest La Nina events since the start of that sea level dataset, but it was not classified as a strong La Nina by NOAA. The NOAA definition of a strong La Nina is “When Niño 3.4 region SSTs are 1.5 °C or more below the historical average, then a strong La Niña is said to be occurring. For official classification purposes, a La Niña’s strength is classified by the lowest observed three month averaged temperature in the Niño 3.4 Region.” Refer to the third paragraph in:
http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mfr/climo/update_lanina_2011.php
“[T]he lowest observed three month averaged temperature in the Niño 3.4 Region,” the Oceanic NINO Index (ONI), during the 2010/11 La Niña never reached -1.5 deg C:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
For the 2010/11 La Nina to be considered a strong event, one would have to be referring to the Multivariate ENSO Index, which is not the official NOAA ENSO Index.
In South Australia the building rules have changed to require the installation of a minimum 1000 litre rainwater tank for all new housing (and some extensions with a toilet or laundry). Many households are installing far more than that (eg, I have 50,000 litres of storage).
Do they account for changes in water storage over the entire globe in the models if rainwater can cause so much variation in sea levels?
Where can one find the most recent GRACE data online for snow accumulation / ice loss over Greenland and Antarctica?
I’ve updated the head post.
w.
Willis – is the other Willis your nightmare Jekyll and Hyde alter ego?
chris y says:
“Envisat seems to be the crazy uncle that no-one among the CACC circle-singers wants to acknowledge…”
Correct.
In addition I saw the temperature chart posted by Juraj V. and the comment around sea temperature not rising. As envisat seems to align to the ocean temperature measurements better then the others I would think this is a validation for envisat results.
Thankyou Australia.
Aussies are saving the world from rising sea-levels
(and ensuring the employment of incompetent liars err… politicians who would otherwise be unemployable.)
Who said the Carbon Tax wouldn’t work?, see, it already is.
Cheers from Canada
Bob & Willis
Does my eyeball analysis of the sea level rise deceive me? Is there not something obviously different about the 2010 event, the pattern of the steep fall from 1998 and 2007 is repeated but, sea level has continued to fall during 2011 rather than immediately rebounding!
Is this not interesting?, curiosity and all that
Lars P says:
August 24, 2011 at 9:56 am
As Steven Goddard shows:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/06/19/hiding-the-decline-in-sea-level/#more-32692
envisat is not showing any sea level rise.
Hear hear, take a look at yet another rather striking “hide the decline” event engineered by “scientists” – specifically involving the rate of sea level rise, about zero over the last 7 years.
So where did the “lost” water go, Dr. Willis? Mark my words, the Watermelons world-wide are up to no good again!
“Note that for all of the screaming about Greenland melting … it gained ice over the period of the year.”
Willis, GRACE is measuring soil water. On their site, they have a specific caveat:
“This total water content is directly comparable to what GRACE measures over land. The Greenland values should NOT be used, the model is not valid there.”
Has anyone done a correlation between ENSO and changes in sea level trends. Just eyeballing the two graphs it appears that rate of sea level rise trends down either during or following an El Nino event; but this may just be my perception.
Warmcold, meltfreeze, floodraught, wetdry etc. all caused by CAGW. Now also: risedrop.
Can’t go wrong. And I mean CAN’t
JPL Oceanographers, that’s kind of a paradox.
Is’t any wonder that US are bleeding money when they federally fund a complete organization of 5000 plus consultants and all they can come up with is, well, corrected for propaganda purposes results? :p
Nick Stokes says:
August 24, 2011 at 2:35 pm
Nick, youll have to explain that one to me. The map I gave shows what they call GRACE anomalies. The map you cite, on the other hand, shows the output of a model called GLDAS, which is only peripherally related to GRACE. According to them, the modelled GLDAS Greenland values should not be used, as the model is not valid in Greenland … so what? The NASA folks in the citation are not using the GLDAS results anywhere, They’re using the GRACE results.
What you have done in the process of this is ignore my objection, that there is nowhere near enough water shown in their own cited GRACE results to explain the drop in sea level … care to comment on that? And if you are right and we should ignore Greenland, the situation is even worse, as that was a big area where water is supposed to be going.
w.
And this fall is even WITH their 0.3mm/yr artificial rise added in :-).
The Oceans are disappearing? We’re doomed!
Trenberth must be beside himself. The missing heat was supposed to be in the ocean and now it’s even worse than he thought. The non-missing heat appears to have gone missing as well. Where could it be hiding ….
pat says:
August 24, 2011 at 9:51 am
Of course the models predicted this drop./
They did? — wait a minute whilst I check the latest output from the Team……..
just a minute, they are adjusting their figures and data…..
and hey presto……..
oh yes, so they did!…..LOL
/sarc off
Well, since a pothole is not usually known as a good thing, they must be saying that sea level rise is a good thing.
Check another crisis off the list.
We have local ordinances which require the developer of new shopping centers to build collection ponds for rainwater runoff.
Please tell the alarmists, and the bureacrats they feed with our money, that the sea level “problem” has been mitigated.
Thank them for their concern, but we have taken care of it ourselves.
“Willis Eschenbach says: August 24, 2011 at 4:05 pm
Nick, youll have to explain that one to me.”
GLDAS is the data assimilation model, but I believe the caveat derives from the data source.
Here is the actual mass measurement page “GRACE MONTHLY MASS GRIDS – LAND” also laying it out in full caps:
“NOT SUITABLE FOR CRYOSPHERIC STUDIES
These grids are not suitable for quantitative studies of Greenland or Antarctica. In those regions one must use region-specific mass distributions and derive region-specific scaling coefficients, which is not done here. The scaling coefficients provided here were derived from a land hydrology model that does not work well in those regions. In addition, the hydrology model does not constrain trends well anywhere.”
As for the question of whether total water retained is comparable to the ocean deficit, well, the data seems to be here. It needs to be added with due allowance for latitude. I’ll do a post on that.
Erm, silly question really, but I would like to try and understand this – Isn’t a La Nina an upwelling of cold deep water leading to a surface layer of cold water over the Pacific? If so then we are not actually saying that all the oceans and the seas of the world just cooled are we? Instead we are saying that the La Nina current cooled the atmosphere (which by the way is just the same as saying that the ocean warmed up a bit). Are we then saying that the – slightly – cooled atmosphere led to such massive cooling of the rest of the oceans and seas that they shrank??? What am I missing?
Mike Abbott, accuracy and precision are not the same thing. Accuracy = closeness of measured value to true value. Precision = closeness of several measurements to each other.
Willis Eschenbach says (August 24, 2011 at 1:14 pm): “I’ve updated the head post.”
Thanks for the update, Willis. Very suspicious.