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.
The NOAA site @ur momisugly http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLevelRise/LSA_SLR_timeseries_global.php shows sea level without GIA adjustment and has both Jason-1 and Jason-2 data. From July 2008 using both Jason-1 & Jason-2 to July 2011 they show a decline of 3mm without GIA. Jason-1 is currently showing less rise than Jason-2 in the last seven months. It is interesting to follow both Jasons and their deviations on a regional basis at their home site.
Pamela Gray says:
February 14, 2012 at 7:25 pm
I celebrated with some fermented CO2.
================================================
Well, here’s to hoping you’re still at it! We must allow ourselves some intermittent celebrations! I think we’ll be having more and more as we continue. Bad for our livers, good for humanity!
Maybe the Chinese brother who could swallow the sea (http://www.vaiden.net/five_chinese_brothers.html) has been hard at work.
It would be safe to say that sea level rise is NOT accelerating, but paused, like temps.
This seems to be indicative, that land based total ice bottomed out and may be trending up, despite what we are presently guesstimating as total ice mass. What else can realistically override thermal expansion.
This could be another warning flag that cooling may be imminent, and is, in fact in progress.
Nature’s model can detect ice mass changes with greater sensitivity than our clumsy ice extent measurements. Gravity sat ice mass measurements just don’t have any history, but may start detecting ice increases, if they are not calibrated out. GK
Glenn Tamblyn says:
“One only needs a few nice gigs like that and you have yourself a ‘nice little earner’ as they say.”
^The ultimate in psychological projection.^
You point to grants of thousands of dollars… while Mann collected $1.8 million to ‘study mosquito vectors’ [in addition to many, many millions more in similar payola]. Explain why someone would pay Mann, instead of a biologist or an epidemiologist, to study disease transmission. It was payola, pure and simple. And I can’t seem to find Mann’s report. Maybe you can?
Recent Michael Mann grants:
Development of a Northern Hemisphere Gridded Precipitation Dataset Spanning the Past Half Millennium for Analyzing Interannual and Longer-Term Variability in the Monsoons, $250,000
Quantifying the influence of environmental temperature on transmission of vector-borne diseases, $1,884,991
Toward Improved Projections of the Climate Response to Anthropogenic Forcing: Combining Paleoclimate Proxy and Instrumental Observations with an Earth System Model, $541,184
A Framework for Probabilistic Projections of Energy-Relevant Streamflow Indices, $330,000
AMS Industry/Government Graduate Fellowship, $23,000
Climate Change Collective Learning and Observatory Network in Ghana, $759,928
Analysis and testing of proxy-based climate reconstructions, $459,000
Constraining the Tropical Pacific’s Role in Low-Frequency Climate Change of the Last Millennium, $68,065
Acquisition of high-performance computing cluster for the Penn State Earth System Science Center (ESSC), $100,000
Decadal Variability in the Tropical Indo-Pacific: Integrating Paleo & Coupled Model Results, $102,000
Reconstruction and Analysis of Patterns of Climate Variability Over the Last One to Two Millennia, $315,000
Remote Observations of Ice Sheet Surface Temperature: Toward Multi-Proxy Reconstruction of Antarctic Climate Variability, $133,000
Paleoclimatic Reconstructions of the Arctic Oscillation, $14,400
Global Multidecadal-to-Century-Scale Oscillations During the Last 1000 years, $20,775
Resolving the Scale-wise Sensitivities in the Dynamical Coupling Between Climate and the Biosphere, $214,700
Advancing predictive models of marine sediment transport, $20,775
Multiproxy Climate Reconstruction: Extension in Space and Time, and Model/Data Intercomparison, $381,647
The changing seasons? Detecting and understanding climatic change, $266,235
Patterns of Organized Climatic Variability: Spatio-Temporal Analysis of Globally Distributed Climate Proxy Records and Long-term Model Integrations, $270,000
Investigation of Patterns of Organized Large-Scale Climatic Variability During the Last Millennium, $78,000
Total:
$6,232,700
And that’s only Mann, and an incomplete list at that. There are plenty of alarmists on the climate grant gravy train. On both sides of the Atlantic.
Tamblyn worries about the mote in someone else’s eye, while ignoring the beam in his own eye. A textbook case of projection.
Steve from Rockwood says:
February 14, 2012 at 1:35 pm
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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Steve agreed, it does look remarkably similar except for one point. In 1998 after the ENSO detour the level returned to a higher value than when it began. In 2011 the detour ended with SL at the same point as when it began.
I don’t think there’s much point in arguing this. There’s been little warming over the past decade, so therefore little thermal expansion and very little SLR. It seems to make sense.
So quoting documents from one of WUWT backer organisations is a breach of site policies? Interesting concept.
[Reply: Multiple derogatory “denialist” comments was the reason. Read the site Policy. ~dbs, mod.]
@ur momisugly Glenn Tamblyn
Tedious and predictable. When the science turns against you and nothing else exists to fight the truth, the AGW crowd always, and I mean always, revert to the only weapon they have anymore-ad homs and unprovable allegations. It all must be depressing to watch data point after data point and study after study destroy it all. I feel the momentum shifting toward the scientific method
Erik I have to agree Doug Cotton should immediately invoke a spam filter or perhaps a lack of physics understanding alert. I am wondering if we can get him on the IPCC or at least on the AGW side because I sure as hell don’t want to be associated.
Glenn Tamblyn says:
February 14, 2012 at 7:38 pm
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.
===========================================================
LMAO!!! Pro Bono? You moron! Do you know what kind of money pit the IPCC is? They’re not doing jack “pro bono”! What Anthony does is essentially pro bono, what I do is pro bono….. and the entertainment value you’re giving is assumed pro bono…… But, the IPCC is a great vacuum of capital…… You do realize Hansen, on top of his pay is likely into 7 figures just with “gratuities”? And his is a public office for sale! Graft used to be illegal. It still is for most civil servants. Just not the Malthusian misanthropists.
It’s hilarious when jackasses like you try to project the graft lunatic alarmists make on honest scientists. Tell you what, you ask your “Kevin Travesty, or the Muppet man, or the Mann” to get by on $80,000 and come back and talk your crap. Idiot.
For those people who think the funds from Heartland are remotely comparable to a fund from, say, NSF, I ask you to provide a project proposal submission from someone like Bob Carter that discusses an outline of what he intends to research specifically- his outline of methodologies, his partitioning of funds to resources (retrieval of data, graduate students, etc), and other standard information required for the allocation of funds for a certain purpose.
Being personally funded to be a spokesperson for a thinktank with vested interests, even if $1000 a month, is not comparable to a grant of several million dollars to spend for a legitimate scientific study that requires those expenses. Climate scientists aren’t driving around in ferraris because of grants they get, just like scientists/groups in every discipline get funds that seem large compared to, say, an individual’s salary. But more importantly than the funds, the Heartland leak shows clearly the intentions of Heartland and its affiliates. There is nothing in their about understanding science, or doing studies to improve what we know about climate; it is solely about how they can provide a forum to counter “the warmists.” They even said that dissenting voices are not good! It will be interesting to see how people here try to rationalize (or censor) this.
Oh, by the way, if people spend 5 minutes on google scholar and spend 30 seconds of doing some critical thinking, you might see why the topic of this post features a misuse and mis-application of data to reach a conclusion that is not warranted. I won’t give anything away though. It will be a fun personal experiment for me.
Amateur question: How do the satellites account for the unevenness of the surface of the ocean due to wind-induced wave action–not to mention water that is turned to potentially inches of foam? I recall the part of The Perfect Storm in which the Coast Guard rescuers had to time their drop from helicopters–due to waves approaching 100 feet–which is a fluctuation of approx. 30,480 mm–oops!
I windsurf in Maui every now and then and noticed that the Trade Winds create some nice chaotic breaking waves; given the large portion of Earth affected by the Trades, how is this handled?
At a certain point, it seems like anyone claiming precision of millimeters for a sloshing, churning, foamy mass of H2O may be smoking something funny. As another long-ago commenter noted, “Everest isn’t even moving and we can’t get a clean read on it.” (acknowledging tectonic uplift and that it is gauged relative to ‘sea level’–which may be the problem there).
The water’s moving, the land is rising/falling/sliding, the Sun and Moon are pulling, and the measurement methods are all over the place. Sheesh! Watt’s up with that? 😉
Anthony, got your mail. Reply bounced. Whatever you think is best have at it. Glad to see you think it was worth some space. Enjoying valentine dinner w/ mrs strata! Would have replied sooner.
Cheers, AJStrata
Claude Harvey says:
February 14, 2012 at 4:41 pm
Aren’t you forgetting there is supposedly an 800-year lag between atmospheric temperature changes and ocean responses?
You raise an excellent point and I had not thought of it. However in my opinion, that 800 year period would be the time it takes for the deepest part of the ocean to reach equilibrium with the new higher or lower temperature of the earth. It would appear logical to me that the top few metres would respond almost immediately to a sudden drop in temperature whether it be due to contraction or the absorption of more gases. According to the following, the density changes about 3.4 times as much between 20 C and 25 C as it does between 0 C and 5 C.
http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/general_physics/2_7/2_7_9.html
As a result, the biggest changes would occur sooner rather than later. Perhaps the decrease in sea level since 2005 is a reflection of what started five years earlier.
James Sexton says:
February 14, 2012 at 5:50 pm
Is there a sweet spot of time and temp to effect it in such manner?
P.S. Part of my response above may partly address this as well.
Some others have done the math but I still cannot get my head around it – 60 mm in 20 years. So isn’t that 300mm in 100 years? That’s 11 inches isn’t it? Shouldn’t we all be talking about Linsanity and not this?
Ask the good people of Australia where some of that ocean water has gone. The La Ninas over he few years have not been kind. Grace satellite data shows quite well what has been happening.
Chris Colose says:
February 14, 2012 at 9:12 pm
Chris please go back to GISS where you belong, and tell Gavin Schmidt to properly document his crappy code Model E (which, along with most GISS “products”, are a huge waste of taxpayer money). And don’t tell Jim Hansen that your colluding with people who are committing “crimes against humanity”…
Chris Colose says:
February 14, 2012 at 9:12 pm
For those people who think the funds from Heartland are remotely comparable…….. There is nothing in their about understanding science, or doing studies to improve what we know about climate; it is solely about how they can provide a forum to counter “the warmists.” They even said that dissenting voices are not good! It will be interesting to see how people here try to rationalize (or censor) this.
===========================================================
Yes, Chris, its called science. If they aren’t driving Ferrari’s, then that’s on them. I know I’ve spent enough on their crap that someone should be. Let’s not pretend we don’t know what the budgets are for the various governmental entities, and that includes the government’s bitch, academia. And then, let’s not pretend the more prominent ones, do indeed get paid. As I pointed out earlier, Hansen has received at least 7 figures in graft.
So, some outside scientists need to eat as well? At least, they’re not selling their taxpayer paid office. At least they aren’t selling their positions in academia. At least, they aren’t preying upon our youth to pay for their asinine ideology.
What would be fun would be to see the rationalization of the conflated graph. That would be fun. Chris, you’re a sciency guy, ….. tell me how it’s ok to merge such data sets. Tell us how different instruments, which give us different measurements, over different time spans can be welded together to make a graph for the public. T/P, Jan 2003 measured 2.5cm msl. Jason I measured 11 cm, Jan 2003. Jan, 2009 Jason II measured 19.75 msl…… Jason I measured 12.25 msl
You know what is a fun past time for me? To sit back and watch people uncritically believe what they are told.
Now isn’t that remarkable: It’s clearly shown on this map that the ocean stopped rising on precisely the same day that Obama beat out Hillary in the Democratic Primaries in 2008.
R. Gates says:
February 14, 2012 at 9:53 pm
Ask the good people of Australia where some of that ocean water has gone. The La Ninas over he few years have not been kind. Grace satellite data shows quite well what has been happening.
===================================
R Gates, are you saying those floods lowered the oceans? Are you saying they were caused by CAGW?
What are you saying?
Darn it. Now what am I going to do with the “beach front” property I bought that’s a mile inland?
I can’t see the point of someone like Glenn trying to turn a scientific discussion (although admittedly full of amateur speculations) into a political conspiracy theory discussion. At best it doesn’t win one any credibility, and at worst it suggests a certain element of desperation. Glenn’s other tactic, which is to pronounce scientific sounding gobbledygook is at least a less blatant strategy (until it ends up getting deconstructed).
Colder sea, lower sea level – is that hard to understand?
.
You would think its a dip stick and a hockey.stick at the same time.
When its a dip – the anti-warmists become loud
What its a hockey – the AGWers become loud
When its a trend – that’s real science understanding
There is good reason for subtle rises and falls – its called the hydrological cycle.
It’s called cherry picking or simply nit picking to make a point.
That’s not science.
Look at the trend – not the wiggle of “microns”.
That is the gotcha in all this.
Please don’t forget they introduced an artificial rise less than a year ago: http://ecotretas.blogspot.com/2011/05/rate-of-sea-level-rise-going-down.html
If they hadn’t done it, the rate of rise would be at the moment about 2.7 or 2.8 mm/year
Ecotretas