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:
Data
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:
(Graph from Steve Goddard). Envisat data here: ftp://ftp.aviso.oceanobs.com/
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.
Joe Bastardi says@ur momisugly 2:17pm
Actually Joe, they want to move them to show what a warm and compassionate bunch of officials they are and just to show they can.
Great wx predications-I look at your site everyday
Love it. According to IPCC’s Dr Trenberth, sea levels are the key “evidence” that man has caused global warming. What a joke !
Jay: “Why do the “adjusted” data always show a more AGW/IPCC friendly narrative?
For temperature, sea level what ever.”
Sample bias is an obvious factor. In cases where a correction of raw data goes the other way, nobody makes a big deal about it.
What is it with data these days? The data seem to have lost all sense of direction and the trend is definitely not trendy. We should all be alarmed by the declining standard but I think we have the mann to correct it.
Turn the data over to Hansen. He’ll just apply a “correction” to lower the older data, and hey presto! Now the sea levels are rising again!
Yet another Divergence Problem?
Quick! Hide the decline!
If anyone wants to read Doug Cotton’s source, it is here: http://www.csc.kth.se/~cgjoh/blackbodyslayer.pdf The writeup proves that backradiation does not exist, but if it did exist it wouldn’t warm the surface that it hits. The writeup ignores most of the theory of quantum processes. Those can’t be directly viewed and are easy to ignore. What is not so easy to ignore is that (for example) an object appears to be darker in color from having absorbed more photons. That would be impossible to explain using temperature.
Does typing “Doug Cotton” into a reply automatically invoke the spam filter?
If, what with all the melting glaciers, use of fossil water in agriculture, Antarctic and Greenland ice calving, the sea level is falling, then their can only be one conclusion.
The oceans are dumping heat, raising the atmospheric temperature.
Why do people put a liner function through Thermogeddon type plots. Also show the fit to the Keeling CO2-curve.
Steve from Rockwood says:
February 14, 2012 at 4:01 pm
James Sexton says:
February 14, 2012 at 3:28 pm
James, you made an excellent point and then followed it up with the exact same logic you used to criticize……..
=========================================
Steve, no, the logic was entirely different and so was the purpose. I didn’t conflate any data sets, I just used one. Knowing some of the crowd that sometimes pops by, they’d say, “oh, look our sea-level is still rising!” Is it “cherry-picking’? Of course it is. Every graph shown by either side is cherry picked and purposefully illustrated. That, of course, is the point of graphs and linear trend lines. But, I’ll but mine against CU’s any day.
You ask, “Variations over such a short time period mean nothing. Why not plot from 1900 or at least 1950?”…… I’ve tried. I’ve the entire PSMSL data set…… I thought I could at least go back to 1981…… you can’t. Not objectively. For simple comments and dialogue I’m more than happy to show my perspective. But, for the undertaking of that particular project, I was determined to find an objective view of our sea-level using the tidal gauges. Oddly, the gauges showing a decreasing trend have been discontinued as of late. http://suyts.wordpress.com/2011/09/29/18-stations-with-good-data-ended-in-2008/
I went step by step, showing the good and bad (its on my blog in several posts)…. in the end, the coverage and continuity isn’t there. One must make several subjective determinations to assert any sea-level and the same is true for our satellites. Do the current gauges show a 30 year incline? Yep. Small wonder. But, even if they didn’t eliminate the declining stations, there still wouldn’t be enough coverage to make a definitive statement.
I guess what I’m stating is that there is no known sea level, there never was and there isn’t today….. we’re free to make it up as we go along, because you can be damned sure that’s exactly what CU and the rest of the lunatics are doing. Topex went up and calibrated against what? As I recall the margin of error on that critter was something absurd, 3 centemeters? I’d have to look for the exact number. Then they sent Jason I up, and calibrated him to the huge margin of error….. the very next year they sent Envisat up. Scroll up and you can see where Latitude is trying to tell us Envisat kept saying the oceans were dropping….. 23 passes later and they finally got Envisat to agree with Jason…. never occurring to the morons that Jason could be wrong. Then Envisat continued to disagree….. then Jason II came by, rinse and repeat.
There isn’t a person on this earth or in space that can give you a definative sea level or anomaly. I’ve links to papers and studies and the frustrations of the technicians to get our satellites to agree. It’s all on my blog, just search for “sea level” and start at the begining. All satellite seal level measurments are manually manipulated. And there is not continuety or coverage of the tidal gauges to tell us where we started.
Everybody should contact the various sea level agencies that plot gmsl vs time and ask them why they do not plot the derivative of sea level or sea level rise vs time. The answer is simple because it would show that the rate of sea level rise has been declining since 1998. The plot can be found on the following website. The current 12 month averaged rate of sea level rise has dropped from 4 mm/yr in 1998 to zero today. Now that is rapid deceleration. Claiming that slr rise is currently 3.1 mm/yr by fitting a straight line to the altimetry data since 1993 is a brazen attempt to hide the decline in slr.
http://www.climate4you.com/index.htm
Werner Brozek says:
February 14, 2012 at 4:24 pm
James Sexton says:
February 14, 2012 at 3:28 pm
according to Envisat, we’ve had 7 years of declining sea levels.
And y = -0.0035x
Guess what? The temperature slope since 2005 is -0.00325098 per year
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1980/plot/wti/from:2005/trend
#Time series (wti) from 1979 to 2012
#Selected data from 2005
#Least squares trend line; slope = -0.00325098 per year
===================================================
Well, I wouldn’t put much into it, but it might say something towards the thermal expansion of H2O vs temps? Is there a sweet spot of time and temp to effect it in such manner? We’d have to replicate to find out…… 🙁
@ur momisugly Claude Harvey …… That was Werner, not me. But,……..“Aren’t you forgetting there is supposedly an 800-year lag between atmospheric temperature changes and ocean responses? Wasn’t that the basis for the theory that historic CO2 variations were driven by atmospheric temperature variations rather than the other way around? (The solubility argument,)”
Sorta makes one wonder why we bother with the ocean data then, doesn’t it? 🙂
Latitude says:
February 14, 2012 at 3:47 pm
Was it you or Steve that showed the graph with the correct y axis plotted?
=============================================
I think that was Steve’s….. I’ve never played with the y axis on these inventions….. well, not sober anyway…. maybe. 😉
But, I do have this http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/01/20/6-full-years-of-dropping-sea-level/
A look at Envisat that negates the argument of need for a seasonal adjustment. 6 full cycles.
Aw, c’mon, we ought to stop this kind of faux dip-spotting. I can count at least four 2-4 month dips and levelings in the data, after which the trend resumed. Why cannot we just look at the data, and sit back?
Resourceguy says:
February 14, 2012 at 2:28 pm
Al Gore went sailing and this is the result.
————————————-
Well, when Mr Gore steps on land we can expect a 6mm decline in sea levels.
Eric (skeptic) says:
February 14, 2012 at 5:31 pm
If anyone wants to read Doug Cotton’s source ..
_____________________________________________
The “source” of points (1) and (2) in the post you were responding to was original thought. Let me know when you are prepared to think about the relevant points, if ever, rather than making broad generalisations. If your mathematics is up to the level of Claes Johnson’s (he being a Professor of Applied Mathematics) then go ahead and fault his computations line by line. Then fault my points with facts if you can. Most of us prefer to talk facts on this forum.
The missing heat is obviously in the “pipeline” along with the missing sea level. Now all we have to do is find that pipeline.
Bathtubs have vertical sides. Unlike a bathtub, the World Ocean can cover (uncover) a great spatial extent for any rise (fall) in sea level. See:
http://ine.uaf.edu/werc/projects/NorthSlope/coastal_plain/images/GrassLakes14_WEB.jpg
Thus, input of water and/or its thermal expansion (likewise the reversals) translates poorly to sea level. Making sense of “sea level” may be of hypothetical interest but seems a fool’s errand.
The answer to what is happening with SLR is simple – the recent strong La Nina = more rain over land = temporarily lower sea levels.
2010 – 2011 there was massive flooding – just wait until all that water makes it’s way back into the oceans!
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-262
“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.”
[snip. see sidebar. unreliable source.]
I would like to “third” what BarryW and SchrNfr are saying. It looks like Jason-1 data was flat followed by a flat line in Jason-2 with a step function applied after the takeover of Jason-2. Are you sure the fudge factor for the calibration between the two was handled properly? Not sure what would go into that, but, is it possible that someone just tweaked the Jason-2 data for political reasons or perhaps an just a different method of handling sea level in one part of the world? It wouldn’t take much.
It seems to me, that AGW-ism is little more than an apocalyptic secularism seeking to answer one of the huge, vast mysteries of civilization. Problem is they are so sure of their genius they actually believe they could solve it on the first try, so arrogant they could accept no challenge. Does that sound like science? I think the system too complex to be reduced to one or two variables. Ocean levels, temperatures, glaciation, solar activity, volcanic activity, weather patterns, human activity all are part of an equilibrium, each one balanced with the rest thus moderating dramatic changes and that is the point AGT-ists want to ignore.
I celebrated with some fermented CO2.
dorlomin says: February 14, 2012 at 3:27 pm
Even if we accept the chart from SkepticalScience, so what? It only shows about 50mm (~2 in) of sea level rise in the last ~20 years. Thats only 25cm (~10 in) per CENTURY! Who can’t deal (or adapt) to that?
I don’t know of any place that will be endangered by a mere 10 inch increase in sea level. Do you?
[snip. Multiple site Policy violations. ~dbs, mod.]
Anthony, when will the new Temperature website be up and running? I’m sure Heartland and their Anonymous Donor would like to know their $88K is being well spent.
And nearly $400K for the NIPCC Report. A bit pricy don’t you think when the scientists who work on the IPCC report do it Pro Bono.
Still $144K for Craig Idso, $60K for Fred Singer, even $20K for Bob Carter down in Australia. One only needs a few nice gigs like that and you have yourself a ‘nice little earner’ as they say.