Obama was right–‘the rise of the oceans began to slow’

From his June 4, 2008 speech on winning the Democratic primaries:

“This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow, and our planet began to heal.”

Here’s the proof: Ten year running mean sea level rise from satellite altimetry.

MSL_satellite_10yrs

Figure 1. Decadal (overlapping) rates for sea level rise as determined from the satellite sea level rise observations, 1993-2011 (data available from http://sealevel.colorado.edu/).

h/t to Dr. Pat Michaels

UPDATE: for the whiners about “cherry picking” here’s a graph with data through 2012, not much difference in the rate.

SLR_rate_to2012

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
albertalad

Well they gave him a Nobel before he became the Messiah – now he can walk on water anyway!

Since the sea level rise peaked in 2005 and the decrease started in 2006, the POTUS was not being clairvoyant, he was just looking at a data trend 3 years running.
Kurt in Switzerland

The POTUS was not being clairvoyant, he was just being himself: a megalomaniac.

DirkH

And he did that without even doing anything about CO2! How’s that for progressivism!

Ryan

Why would you use that graphic instead of the one at the link? Seems like less information. And why not include 2003-2012? If you’re just making a joke that’s fine, but people take this website seriously, and a lot of them are bad enough at graphs without giving them the fancy version 😛

NikFromNYC

There’s no need to update my Sea Level infographic made in 2010, for Pinocchio’s song remains the same as new tide gauge data remains omitted on NASA’s climate page about sea level:
http://i.imgbox.com/acjDjgBA.jpg

Latitude

oh my Lord…..the bottom of the ocean is sinking faster than we thought

Jay

He had no knowledge of any of it.. Its just over zealous little snow flakes at the north and south poles.. really..

OssQss

Ha! His perfect record is now ruined. He actually got something right. LOL!

David L. Hagen

Only a 44% decline in sea level rise rate over 6 years (3.9 to 2.2)
i.e. 7%/year decline in rise rate from 2001 to 2006.
Obviously a “negative acceleration”!

Jarrett Jones

If I am reading that graph right the “rise of the oceans began to slow” in 2000.
Bush’s fault.

FerdinandAkin

Does not the geological record tell us that sea level peaks out just before the start of next glaciation period?

cirby

You mean the sea isn’t going to rise 5 feet by 2100, like the Scientific American article claimed just today?

Pat Frank

Ooh, the irony! It burns! 🙂

Using the average rate for the past 20 years (even though the average rate is declining), we get a sea level rise of 14 inches per century. This is about double the rate of a broad sample of tide gauges, but still is far below apocalyptic predictions of Gore, Hanson, and a raft – stranded high and dry – of others. In the San Francisco Bay Area an increase of five feet is predicted, yet the oldest tide gauge record in the Western Hemisphere, San Francisco, has been plugging along at an eight inches per century rate since 1854. I feel like the guy at his computer whose wife asked him to check and see what the weather was like, and he said “Look out the window.” It’s time the Bay Area prognosticators looked at the Bay. Are they in for a surprise.

Fin

Like a lot of the stuff on this website, but agree with Ryan the 10 year overlapping data of rate of change of sea levels, lacking the last couple of years is cherry picking and obfuscation. The data at the link this comes from is much more informative and shows a pretty linear rise that had a brief hiatus for a year in 2011.

DocMartyn

You know what this means;
it’s worse than we thought, the ocean expansion sink is filled up and they can’t expand anymore.

Trenberth’s missing heat doesn’t seem to be doing much in the way of thermal expansion.

AndyG55

“now he can walk on water anyway!”
I’ll lend him some concrete gym shoes. 🙂

Mike McMillan

Latitude says: May 28, 2013 at 2:47 pm
oh my Lord…..the bottom of the ocean is sinking faster than we thought

Meant in jest, I’m sure, but the good folks at C.U. actually believe that and have included it in their chart. It’s that Glacial Isostatic Adjustment “GIA corrected” term under the chart legend. It amounts to 0.3 mm/yr added to the rate of rise, and accounts for their belief that the the balance between rising land and deepening ocean after the melting of the ice age glaciers amounts to that much per year. It affects sea volume, however, not sea level, and thus muddies up the usefulness of the data.
The “inverse barometer applied” adjustment also affects the chart in some unspecified manner. Once upon a time, before the GIA was invented, C.U. had charts available with and without the inverse baro and seasonal signal adjustments.
The GIA explanation was available on the front page, and now it is no longer referenced. It’s in their FAQ page, however.

RoyFOMR

This is kinda worrying. I thought that sea-level fell just before a Tsunami came!
Is it really worse than we thought and all the bad things said about CO2 (Source: numberwatch.co.uk) are actually true?
Shouldn’t someone give Laureate Gore (call me Al) a ring so he can head for the hills and safety?

Increased Carbon Dioxide has made the Sponges in the ocean grow at an accelerated rate, and they are soaking up all of the extra water!
(runs away)

Steven

Latitude: The bottoms of the oceans are sinking and the land is rising. All at the same time. Imagine that ! People who think there will ever be a significant rise in oceans levels are seriously deluded.

RoyFOMR

@James Padgett says:
May 28, 2013 at 3:34 pm
“Trenberth’s missing heat doesn’t seem to be doing much in the way of thermal expansion”
James, Thermal expansion is yesterday’s Physics.
You’re, clearly, not a climate-scientist with a background in Post-Normal Fizzicks or you’d be fully aware that dihydrogen-monoxide at depths beyond 700m or so is teleconnected , in such a way to the atmosphere, so that it contracts as it absorbs energy and therefore sinks via convection!
Maybe you’re not totally convinced by my reasoning but the evidence is clear.
We must be warming because the models tell us that this is happening.
That we don’t observe this warming is a travesty.
We can’t think of why ths is happening.
Ergo, it must be Mann-made and the blame clearly lies with CO2!
I rest my case!

Gomer

Any rise in sea level rise over the last few centuries has been caused by Dutch Dykes. Naturally, the Netherlands should be flooded now, spreading the oceans over a larger area and lowering sea level. Dutch Dykes I tell ya.

Mark Bofill

Wow. The man might actually be the Semichrist after all.

We are the people we’ve been waiting for.
Didn’t Jimmy Buffet have a lyric like that?

Bill Illis

Awhile ago, I downloaded all the annual Tide Gauge data in Permanent Mean Sea Level Service database. There is 31,000 individual annual measurements in the database although there would be some Gauges moving in and out of the database so this is just the average change of all Gauges in the database.
I’ve got the Tide Gauges showing 1.41 mms/year since 1980. One should probably add 0.3 mms/year to that since GPS indicates the land at (most of) the Tide Guages is rising at 0.3 mms/year versus the Geoid (the average glacial isostatic rebound which is still ocurring).
http://s2.postimg.org/xcp9tsz6x/Sea_Level_Measurements_PMSL_1930_1980_2009.png
And this chart compares the average of all Tide Gauges in the PMSL database to other sea level estimates produced through the satellites and other scientists. I’m going with the Tide Gauges versus the adjustments done with the satellites.
http://s8.postimg.org/9ysbkpw51/All_Sea_Level_Measurements_1960_2013.png

Oh good grief. First it was temperatures with decades turning into 10 year periods, now this graph listing the 10 year periods on the X-axis. Oh well, I suppose it makes it clear exactly how the “10 year smoothing” is being done.
I understand the smoothing, I’m not convinced the data in bar chart above reflects the data at the CU link though. It looks to me as though the bar heights should be much more similar.

I’m not sure about this. The wise men have told us that sea level rise will increase from 3 mm/yr to ~22 mm/yr. The Virginia coast line will be destroyed by at least 1′ of sea level rise in the next 30 years.
How to be a climate skeptic: remember the predictions for more than two weeks.

Gary Hladik

Should we just call him “King Canute” now? 🙂

Jeremy

The English have an appropriate term to describe people like POTUS or Prince Charles: Pompous Git!

Jason Miller

It is obvious why the bar graph stops at 2011. The data on the CU website shows a sharp increase afterwards. This is absolutely Cherry Picking.
Here’s the current graph from CU Sea Level Research Group –
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2013_rel4/sl_ns_global.png

Pat Michaels

May I humbly point out that I posted this for funsies? If we lose our sense of humor, we become like Mikey Mann.

RockyRoad

The president’s statement was as bad as Warmistas adopting “climate change” as their password–something that’s completely natural and expected. And yet they want everybody to think it’s a problem.
Completely absurd.

RockyRoad

Pat Michaels says:
May 28, 2013 at 5:49 pm

May I humbly point out that I posted this for funsies? If we lose our sense of humor, we become like Mikey Mann.

We’re having fun bashing baseless comments, many that have sounded exactly like Mikey Mann.
Thanks for the fun; our senses of humor have been exercised.

I remember reading (in comments on this website) that about 1mm pa is caused by water being pumped out of the terrestrial water table and ending up in the ocean, in which case the part from melting ice is even lower?.

Steve Case

That’s funny, Michel’s graph shows a rate of well over 3.5 mm/yr of sea level rise for 2004 but if you check out what Colorado University’s Sea Level Research Group said at the time – and you can do this with the Internet Archive Way Back Machine,
http://web.archive.org/web/20040215105250/http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
It shows that sea level rise was only 2.8 mm/yr.
How can that be?

TimC

Fin said: “[I] agree with Ryan the 10 year overlapping data of rate of change of sea levels, lacking the last couple of years is cherry picking and obfuscation. “
I also agree – this data is cherry-picked. From the Colorado.edu website data you can already calculate a further point for 2003-2012 which shows an uptick back to the 2001-2010 level. The raw GMSL time series graph also shows an increase rate of rise (reversing out the 0.3mm GIA) from 2011 to 2013, from which it is very likely that the uptick/increase in the plotted decadal rates will be maintained for at least 2 more years. So 2002-2011 was probably just the low point in the decadal rates, which will likely increase again in each of the 3 following years.

Leo G

The shape of the chart changes with every recalibration. It appears that the data is periodically calibrated against the average SLR gradient of a subset of global tide gauges.

Box of Rocks

Kurt in Switzerland:
2005? Why doesn’t he just blame GWB?

Box of Rocks

Mark Bofill says:
May 28, 2013 at 4:57 pm
Wow. The man might actually be the Semichrist after all.
No, he is a god – just ask him.

Adam

Obama does not care about the environment or humans. He is a narcissistic maniac who is only interested in power. He does not care whether he gains power by doing good or evil. So long as he gets power. He has decided to take the easy route, he gets his power from doing evil. But who really has the power? Obama or his masters? In reality Obama has no power at all, he only has the power to obey his masters. That is what happens when you sell your soul. Obama is tool, nothing more. He will pass and be replaced. He is so utterly replaceable.

markx

Bill Illis says: May 28, 2013 at 5:13 pm
“….I’ve got the Tide Gauges showing 1.41 mms/year since 1980. One should probably add 0.3 mms/year to that since GPS indicates the land at (most of) the Tide Guages is rising at 0.3 mms/year versus the Geoid (the average glacial isostatic rebound which is still ocurring)….”
I’m interested to know why it is thought we should add the GIA 0.3 mm – surely it is nett sea level which interests us … unless we are expecting the iostatic move to suddenly cease.
In 100 years we are going to have to explain that the sea has risen 30 cm (assuming the satellites are accurate, and I for one have doubts), but that this includes 3 cm of ‘virtual’ sea rise.

Voting Democrat has always been an effective way to reduce CO2 emissions – as they trash the economy, CO2 emissions plummet.

Luther Wu

Pumped out a lot of the aquifers…

markx

Reasons for needing the new GRASP satellite (and my reasons for doubting the data)
“ …. Beckley et al. [2007] reprocessed all the TOPEX/Poseidon and Jason-1 SLR & DORIS data within the ITRF2005 reference frame, and found that the differences in the older CSR95 and ITRF2000 realizations and ITRF2005 caused differences of up to 1.5 mm/yr in regional rates of mean sea level rise….”
and
“….Thus, we assess that current state of the art reference frame errors are at roughly the mm/yr level, making observation of global signals of this size very difficult to detect and interpret.
This level of error contaminates climatological data records, such as measurements of sea level height from altimetry missions, and was appropriately recognized as a limiting error source by the NRC Decadal Report and by GGOS….”

(http://ilrs.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/GRASP_COSPAR_paper.pdf)
The estimated 0.7 mm/year of sea level rise (from several sources) from pumped aquifer water is a separate issue, bringing into question the accuracy of the ice melt and ocean heat content measures.

Yet John Boon just converted to Alarmism as he now declares the sea is rising faster in the mid-atlantic region. http://www.wavy.com/dpp/news/local_news/norfolk/sea-level-rising-fastest-in-norfolk
Wonder how AGW picked that spot out of the entire world’s coasts?

Evan Thomas

Physical measurements around Australia show very little change in sea levels. Cheers from still above water Sydney

Jeremy said @ May 28, 2013 at 5:35 pm

The English have an appropriate term to describe people like POTUS or Prince Charles: Pompous Git!

I resemble that remark!