Sea level still not cooperating with predictions

The university of Colorado has recently updated their sea level graph from the TOPEX satellite data. The 60 day smoothed trend is still stalled and shows no rise over what was seen since the peak in mid 2010:


Raw data (ASCII) | PDF | EPS

Here’s the same data with season variation retained, but the really interesting data is from ENVISAT, which shows no upward trend:

ScreenHunter 113 Feb. 08 19.04 Sea Level Disaster For Alarmists

(Graph from Steve Goddard). Envisat data here:

Sea level is lower than eight years ago, and according to the graph above just passed the lowest annual peak in the Envisat record.

It’s damned inconvenient.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

First the missing increase in temperatures over the last 15 years, then the missing ocean heat, now the missing sea level rise…what’s next? This has to be attributable to interference by aliens…there’s just no other logical explanation….


Just wait, almost there….. see it is rising (nothing a tweek of the numbers can’t handle)

Carl Brannen

So why are Envisat disagreeing with Jason-1 and Jason-2 about ocean levels?

George E. Smith;

The first graph above shows why I hate these silly “Trend lines” as if they mean something.
My calibrated eyeball sees a trendline starting at about -15 at 1992 going up to about +40 in 2006, and then breaking over to a lower slope after that.
Forget the black line; there’s a squiggly blue line that is a better trend line in my view.
Why “they” spend a lot of taxpayer money getting actual data, and then throw it all away for some y = mx + c thing is beyond me.
I’m sure some canned recipe produced the black line, so I’m not criticising whoever ran the numbers through that mill. I just object to ascribing any meaning whatsoever to the black line.

David A. Evans

Typo! 60 Month should be 60 DAY smoothing.

The real danger is shrapnel from imploding warmist heads. And the longer it’s delayed, the more violent will be the detonations! Beware! Keep your distance, and avoid all involvement with associated secondary explosives like renewables and sustainable whatevers.
You have been warned!


Obviously this is one election promise Obama is keeping. The waters are receding on his command.


That’s the adjusted. The Envisat picture in the article is the unadjusted.

Bill Yarber

The decease after 2010 is “unprecedented” in the past 19 years for amount and duration. Obviously we may be headed toward another Ice Age. We’re doomed, we’re all going to freeze to death.
Sorry, couldn’t resist!

Geroge E Smith said: “…My calibrated eyeball sees a trendline starting at about -15 at 1992 going up to about +40 in 2006, and then breaking over to a lower slope after that.”
Funy how THIS hockey stick is unseen by some.


If the huge amount of missing heat that the earth is supposedly accumulating is going into the oceans, shouldn’t the oceans be rising substantially? It seems to me that the missing heat is quite clearly NOT going into the oceans. TIme for the warmists to come up with a new hand-waving theory…. maybe something like water at 39F is the most dense, so what is happening is that all of the ocean water at 34F has been warming lately due to the sinking warm water laden with the missing heat resulting in warming the 34F water up to 39F which explains why there is more heat in the ocean but yet the sea level is falling. There…. problem fixed for them.


One line summary: if heat is supposedly stored in the deep ocean, then why is sea level declining instead of increasing, which should happen if more heat is in the ocean?
Analysis: We keep hearing from some on the “AGW is dooming us” group that the increased warmth is hidden in the oceans. Well, it wasn’t in the top 700 meters, so it must be even deeper, people like Trenberth, K are wont to say.
But….if the deep ocean is storing warmth, then thermal expansion should make the sea level rise more quickly. After all, most of the IPCC’s sea level rise projections are due to thermal expansion of a slightly warmer ocean, less due to melting of ice caps and glaciers, at least for the rest of this century.
That is where these graphs come in handy. If there is thermal expanion, if the oceans are getting warmer, it should show up in rising sea levels. But it appears that sea levels have been falling for either 18 months (U Colo) or two years (Envisat and unadjusted data). That seems to say that oceans may be getting cooler, not warmer.
Is there any argument against this interpretation? Steve Mosher, can you think of one? Anybody?

Steve from Rockwood

From the first graph, what happened in 2011 is the inverse of what happened in 1998. Otherwise looks like an upward trend to this linear thinker.

OK. Temperatures are not rising. Sea levels are not rising. The Great Barrier Reef is not dying. The oceans are not becoming ‘more acidic’. Storms are not increasing in frequency or severity.
What else were we supposed to be terrified about?


Ocean water is now hiding someplace with ocean heat.


Clearly this is a calibration error.

Envisat does have an overall upward trend. It is a stunning 3.2 cm/century!

Owen in GA

Adjusted = “we fed it through the models to inject our expectation into the output”

Red Baker

The net warming must have ceased. That would influence both the expansion of ocean water and the melting of glaciers.

Lars P.

plazaeme says:
February 14, 2012 at 1:21 pm
Curious. If you go here:
And choose “Envisat” plus “time serie”, you get a very different picture
plazaeme, you have to work through and click away all adjustments then you get the same


Did you all miss the little notation in the graphs that say 3.1 mm/yr? The 20 year trend line is clearly increasing. Talk about missing the forest because of a cherry tree!

Mike M

It’s damned inconvenient.

..and a travesty.


I see the horrifying trend of 60 mm in 20 years and calculate that as I live some 18 m above local sea level I will have to raise my house in some 6000 years – who the hell is gonna pay for this ?

But what is sea level supposed to be? Here in the UK we use Newlyn in Cornwall, the problem with that being is Newlyn land is sinking.
I guess it is supposed to mean the amount of H2O in fluid form on the planet at any one time but how do you measure that?

tim in vermont

“What’s next?”
Well, the stratosphere doesn’t seem to have cooled much since 1995.

Bob Diaz

/// SATIRE ///
The problem is that the sea level just does not understand the importance of following the model. After all, the model takes priority over any reality.!!!!


plazaeme and Ged
Why do the “adjusted” data always show a more AGW/IPCC friendly narrative?
For temperature, sea level what ever.

Give it to Michael. There’s certainly some Mann-made hockey-stick-shaped turds floating around there somewhere. He’ll find ’em.

Does this graph include the algorithm adjustment that adds in expanding land mass to hide the decline in sea levels?

Sea levels? They mean nothing to me. I’m still pulling some very nice sea bass, red mullet and some VERY delicious crab from the sea here on the central South Coast of England (even during this sudden cold snap).
The professional fishermen laugh with derision when I ask if they’ve noticed the sea level rising, and some of them have been going to sea for over fifty years!
Our little spit of land here used to be cut off by the sea but now we can drive ‘inland’ without even getting our car tyres wet.


Al Gore went sailing and this is the result.


I see a few other time periods where the trend was not upward for 1.5 years. Another six months of stalling will be more interesting.


If you go to that site and then turn off all the corrections (Inverted barometer correction not applied, Seasonal signal not removed, Glacial Isostatic Adjustment Not Applied) you get a graph that looks identical to the graph shown above.

Robert M

The problem with people just looking at the data is that they don’t understand the big picture.
For instance. The top graph from the University of Colorado is close to true sea levels because they have identified one reason for the measurement error. The Glacial Isostatic rebound adjustment is a good start, but clearly it still needs a little tweaking as the data still does not reflect AGW’s modeled reality. I’m sure this will be corrected in due course.
As for the second graph, it is pure garbage since it clearly does not reflect the rising sea levels we know are occuring. It is quite possible that this dataset has been hijacked by big oil.
/sarc if you don’t already know.


From Wikipedia:
Knowing the satellite’s precise position to within 2 centimeters (less than 1 inch) in altitude was a key component in making accurate ocean height measurements possible
Sorry, been too long since statistics class. How do we get 0.4 mm/yr when we have positional error bars on the sat itself of 20mm. Did someone prove the positional errors cancel out with enough samples to obtain this precision?

kbray in california

Although sea level it has been variable in the last 2 years,
the sea level today is lower than what it was almost 2 years ago from the 2009 peak.
Where is that accelerating sea rise up to many meters high predicted to swamp our coastal cities?
We have been “dicked” by the predictors.
It’s time for a castration of the catastrophe confabulation.
Cut the warmist’s funding and where ever else that scalpel can reach…
Payback time please.


Can we at least agree that “since mid 2010” is a little short, timewise?


It was even worse from 2005 to 2008. WUWT?

Mike M

Resourceguy says: Al Gore went sailing and this is the result.

Therein lies the paradox, his displacement ought to raise sea level. (But if his head were to ever go under water I’d think we should still prepare for a tsunami.)


Carl Brannen says:
February 14, 2012 at 1:15 pm
So why are Envisat disagreeing with Jason-1 and Jason-2 about ocean levels?
Carl, Envisat’s first 22 passes showed sea levels falling…
…they didn’t believe it, so they adjusted Envisat to match the output of Jason 2
Which leaves you with only two conclusions….
They launched a crap satellite….
…they fudged the output from Envisat
Either way, Envisat went back to showing sea levels falling even after their “adjustment”…


The sea level rise is an observable mystery. The sea level is rising…but always somewhere else where you have never been.
Where exactly have all that extra water, that’s been dumped into the ocean for the last 20 years, been amassing itself? Is there some great blob protruding from a secret place somewhere, waiting to deliver sudden flooding when doom finally strikes?
The earth is expanding by land rise, but the water level is supposed to be rising faster, but the last part seem to be a highly localized (statistical) phenomenon indeed.

Stephen Wilde

The climate zones have been contracting equatorward since about 2000 with more meridional jetstreams causing longer lines of air mass mixing and greater cloudiness around the globe in both hemispheres.
The consequence is a reduction in solar shortwave radiation getting into the oceans. That skews the ENSO balance in favour of La Nina events as against El Nino events by reducing ocean heat content when El Ninos occur but failing to achieve a full recharge when La Ninas occur.
The longer it continues the cooler the oceans will become and tropospheric temperatures will follow.

There is still a phase coherence between the sea level oscillations and the solar tide pattern of Mercury/Earth & Co.;
The oscillation is also weak impressed in the GL UAH Temperature.
Any remarks?

David L

I think it’s time for a new law. But what to call it? The law states that all linear projections will eventually fail.


Truly an inconvenient truth.
REPLY: yes, so what? Explain the ENVISAT data – Anthony

Here’s what I want to know…… why do people accept the idiotic conflated graph to begin with? They took 3 separate data sets, which each have 3 separate values and threw them together and no one says boo. Go to avisio and click on each one separately…… the values are entirely different. Given that methodology one can put anything together to show just about anything. Its stupid.
For those who are wondering, Envisat shows a very slight decline in the unadjusted data since late January 2005…… according to Envisat, we’ve had 7 years of declining sea levels.

Joachim Seifert

The ocean level rises with thermal expansion of the water…..
…how can Hansens missing heat be hiding in the water without a rising sea level?
Therefore, the missing heat cannot be in the oceans….. it is said to be “in the
pipeline”…but we can see, the pipeline does not go through the ocean….somewhere else….
…….. Obviously to see: The existing temp plateau of the 21 Cty can also be proven
by ocean level measurements, which show the end of ocean level expansion and the
end of global warming, one correlating well with the other…..