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.
Um, I think the honour goes to Andrew Johnson or Ulysses Grant, does it not? The ten biggest decadal rises in sea level all occurred between the late 1700s and the 1860s, so…Johnson? Someone needs to give the guy credit for something.
Seeing as how the Colarado data has now been bastardised to take out effects such as basin expansion it’s actually hard to know what it means. Sea level might actually be declining and yet the ‘data’ would show it still increasing. Arseholes.
“Obama was right…”
No he has always been left, extremely left.
Everybody here has missed the significance of this. Obviously the ocean is not rising DUE precisely to global warming. Trenberth was right, the extra heat is in the oceans which is causing more evaporation into the atmosphere where it dissipates in space due to the contrast between the air and the vacuum. This was not anticipated by our models because it is much worse than we thought. These facts are inarguable and do not need to be discussed further so let’s all just move along please, “thus sayeth the Obama” 😉
Well, he did see to it that we met out Kyoto target. /s Obama has harnessed the power of junk science. If it happens, we told you so. If it doesn’t happen, we saved you.
Imo, the basis of the article seems false. The rate of sea level rise has not decreased. When I look at the data I am a bit concerned that the rate of rise has shown an increase in the last 24 months that if maintained will result come closer to AR4’s forecasted rise. http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
Isostatic rebound gets more interesting when you think of it as more than a statistic. We know that most of the ice was on eastern North America, Greenland, and western Eurasia.. Rebound does not apply only to land. The adjoining ocean basins (Arctic and North Atlantic) are rebounding as well. As a result the other ocean basins are getting deeper and the isostatic load from the water in them is increasing. We think of water as “self leveling” but the mantle is as well, albeit much more slowly. Glad I don’t have to write the parameters for all this!
“This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow, and our planet began to heal.”
So sayeth the Great and Powerful TOTUS (Teleprompter Of The United States). Pay no attention to the corrupt little man behind the curtain……
You should not joke with statistics, some may take it seriously.
You know that the sea continues to raise in the same speed of 3 mm/year
From Rob S on May 29, 2013 at 7:45 am:
You link right to the page with the relevant rate of sea level rise graph, and don’t acknowledge what it shows?
There was a notable dip in 2011. On that page is a link to a CU publication on it:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/2011-la-ni%C3%B1a-so-strong-oceans-fell
The 2011 La Niña: So strong, the oceans fell
Here’s direct link to paper:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Staff/Fasullo/my_pubs/Boening2012etalGRL.pdf
Those “last 24 months” are not an increase in the rate of rise, that’s merely a correction back to the long-term trend. Nothing special going on, no confirmation of the AR4 forecast.
Relax, and stop trying to upset people in such an easily-disproved manner.
Goode ’nuff says:
May 29, 2013 at 1:20 am
Well, some fun at our grandiose leader. Oh, I have a grin, I like political stuff…
Apparently you like writing fiction as well!
The murder of 4 US citizens on US soil at the Benghazi embassy site on 9/11/2013 by muslim terrorists, and the following out right cover up by the highest levels of the Obama administration and the State Department lead by Hillary Clinton, is a failure of leadership of our Dear Commander In Chief and a corruption scandal far more serious than Watergate.
The use of the IRS by the Obama administration to illegally intimidate, harass, and stall groups opposed to Obama’s re-election and socialist agenda and the cover up that is unraveling as we speak is a corruption scandal far more serious than Watergate.
But wait! There’s more!!
The use of the Department of Justice and other federal assets by the Obama administration to illegally investigate, intimidate, harass, and stall legitimate 1st Amendment news reporting by AP and Fox news reports is a corruption scandal far more serious than Watergate.
Oh, I have a grin! I like facts! Especially those facts that highlight the repeated failings and corruption that surrounds our ‘Grandiose Leader’. Impeachment and removal from office will be ‘Goode ’nuff’ and richly deserved!
MTK
Yes, Dr Michaels has indeed not told the whole story by deleting the uptick for the 2003-2012 calculation. But I think he was just trying to emphasize what was right in what the President said and just being silent about what is happening most recently.
He was trying to cover up the fact that at some point before the presidents election and his prediction, the sea rise had in fact started to slow. After 4 years of Mr Obamas administration and all of his and others efforts to combat climate change, the effect has been the opposite! The most recent increases in sea rise during his administration have finally caused the declining decadal calculation to reverse! What have they done? They’ve made it worse!
Pat was just trying to be nice by not pointing out this uncomplimentary fact /sarc
Well, the rate of increase had been declining since decades (if not centuries) before Barry Obama was even born.
MTK, you know why Romney didn’t attack POTUS because the FBI f*d up and they have the dirt on everybody. Including Romney… http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2012/08/mitt-romney-lied-to-husband-of-woman-he.html?m=1 I wouldn’t be surprised there is more. There sure is stuff Bush senior disappeared for his boy.
Reagan didn’t know anything Oliver North was into did he? IRS deal is just like that.
The Whig/Republicans ran us into the ground in the 1930’s and the 2000’s as well. Recall Nixon’s famous trip granting China preferred trading status? Set up EPA for Walton. Alpha Kappa Psi quail hunting buddies with the Gipper. Cheney, the Bush’s, Bubba and Hickabee etc…
Use your brain to do more than absorb everything the talking heads tell you.
I should have added the CIA with the FBI.
The Dutch Dyke problem has been solved by the Europe wide gay marriage thing. Now all the boys can pull their fingers out and live happily ever after…
Remember when China tried to buy Unocal? The Republicans’ communist friends own a significant part of the Canadian oil with the purchase of Nexen. Contracts to buy that fuel are in place. They control 75% of the oil on this planet.
Goode ’nuff says:
May 30, 2013 at 10:00 am
G’uff,
Your commentary has entered the ‘fantasy’ genre. It is way beyond even marginal science fiction. Is there anything science related that you would like to discuss, related to the story above? If not, ‘Have A Rainbow Day!’
MtK
A few questions to the author:
1. How do you calculate your data? is “2003-2012” a difference in sea level between the end of 2012 and begining of 2003?
2. What’s the reason/ advantages for choosing this method, which is susceptible to the interannual variations of both years, over more standard ways to evaluate possible changes in trend, say, moving average?
3. Why the “update” not only added the missing year, as advertised, but also apparently changed some … EARLIER data as well? For instance, in the original Fig.1, the 2002-11 =~ 2.25 mm/yr, while in the “Update” it moved to =~ 2.39 mm/yr. The 2001-10 bar in the original Fig.1 was 2.64 mm/yr, in the “Update” it moved to =~ 2.74. Watts up with that?
Correction to my previous questions to the author:
q.1 -Disregard this one – I was confused by the fact that you used 1 year resolution to present the results (the actual data have 10 day resolution)
q.2 I will change to: “Any reason /advantages for reducing the resolution in the presentation of the data from <10 days to 1 year"?
q.3 the third one I think still stands:
"Why the “update” not only added the missing year, as advertised, but also apparently changed some … EARLIER data as well? For instance, in the original Fig.1, the 2002-11 =~ 2.25 mm/yr, while in the “Update” it moved to =~ 2.39 mm/yr. The 2001-10 bar in the original Fig.1 was 2.64 mm/yr, in the “Update” it moved to =~ 2.74. Watts up with that?"
Cazenave and Llovel 2009 found observed sea level rise from 1993 to 2007 to be aprox. 3.3mm/yr made up mainly of thermal expansion (1.0 +- 0.3 mm/yr), and ice melt from glaciers and ice sheets (aprox. 1.8 mm/yr).
They compared this with the period 2003 to 2007 with an observed rise of aprox. 2.5 mm/yr made up of thermal expansion (0.25 +- 0.8 mm/yr) and ice melt (aprox. 2.4mm/yr) with land water reducing sea levels by 0.2 mm/yr.
If this paper is correct most of the recent sea level rise (2003 to 2007) is due to increased ice melt with thermal expansion falling to a negligable 25mm per century.
In other words the so called missing heat cannot be hiding in the deep ocean (no thermal expansion) and is not measured in the atmosphere.