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.
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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?
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.
Should we just call him “King Canute” now? 🙂
The English have an appropriate term to describe people like POTUS or Prince Charles: Pompous Git!
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
May I humbly point out that I posted this for funsies? If we lose our sense of humor, we become like Mikey Mann.
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.
Pat Michaels says:
May 28, 2013 at 5:49 pm
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?.
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?
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.
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.
Kurt in Switzerland:
2005? Why doesn’t he just blame GWB?
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.
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.
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.
Pumped out a lot of the aquifers…
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?
Physical measurements around Australia show very little change in sea levels. Cheers from still above water Sydney
Jeremy said @ur momisugly May 28, 2013 at 5:35 pm
I resemble that remark!