The final numbers are in for 2011.
Sea level is lower than eight years ago, and may have just passed the lowest annual peak in the Envisat record.
It must be all those melting glaciers pouring into the sea, which the University of Colorado told us about today.
The Envisat folks are going to “correct” their data upward.
Dang it! You beat me to it! I’ve been a bit busy lately, but have you looked at the seasonal adjustment? I always take it out because there shouldn’t be one when the cycle is completed. But, I think there is……. I just haven’t looked lately.
Ya me too, just get downstairs to do my CAGW web crawl and dave beat us!
Perhaps they can add in the Hansen color pink…that grey/blue is so yesterday…
I’m not just speculating. They told me.
Told ya so.
I removed the seasonal signals and assumed an underlying cycle. After you do that, both the trend and acceleration (in addition to the sine waves) show decreasing sea level:
http://naturalclimate.wordpress.com/2012/02/08/envisat-sea-level-deconstruction-with-2-waves/
“If current trends continue”, we should lose a little over an inch in the next decade.
This doesn’t match the models, so clearly the data is wrong.
There. Glad we got that out of the way.
3/4 of the best GLOSS-LTT tide gauges around the world are measuring rising sea levels. So I think it is fair to say that, over the long term (~century time scale) global mean sea level is rising. But the median rate of sea level rise from these gauges is only about 1.1 mm/year.
The GLOSS-LTT tide gauges are the best we have for measuring sea level, but they aren’t perfect. For one thing, they are not uniformly distributed around the world. But careful geographical weighting of these gauges also yields a global average rate of sea level rise of about 1.1 mm/year:
http://www.burtonsys.com/climate/global_msl_trend_analysis.html
Caveat: the tide gauge coverage is insufficient to have a high confidence in that number as a exact global average. But it’s probably close. (Note: the IPCC’s 1.7 mm/yr for the 20th century is really only 1.4 mm/yr if you subtract off the bogus Peltier GIA adjustment that they add to “account for” an hypothesized sinking ocean floor.)
1.1 mm/yr is glacially slow, amounting to only about 4 inches from 2012-to-2100, and there’s been no acceleration in that rate since the first 1/4 of the 20th century (which means there’s been no acceleration in response to anthropogenic CO2).
The alarmists would have you believe that the average rate of sea level rise over the next 88 years will be 5-15 times that. I think they must be smoking something illegal.
1.1 – 1.4 mm/yr is midrange for the satellite data for recent years, too:
Topex/Poseidon 1994-2006 3.12 mm/yr
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/images/news/indic/msl/MSL_Serie_TP_Global_IB_RWT_NoGIA_Adjust.png
(nearly linear, very slight deceleration apparent)
Jason-1 2002-2012 2.26 mm/yr
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/images/news/indic/msl/MSL_Serie_J1_Global_IB_RWT_NoGIA_Adjust.png
(marked deceleration apparent)
Envisat 2004-2012 0.45 mm/yr
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/images/news/indic/msl/MSL_Serie_EN_Global_IB_RWT_NoGIA_Adjust.png
(very little SLR, and slight deceleration apparent)
Jason-2 2008-2012 0.87 mm/yr
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/images/news/indic/msl/MSL_Serie_J2_Global_IB_RWT_NoGIA_Adjust.png
(just 4 years of data, trend unclear)
And where is this water to come from? Only two places: the Antarctic and Greenland ice masses. And how? You can only get, from warming, more ice into liquid form in the oceans if you a) increase glacial ice flow into the seas, or b) by increasing the melt rate at the termini of glaciers.
In the case of a), glacial extensions down-valley and into the oceans must increase. However, the photos and angst of the warmists is that the glacial masses are retreating up-valley. Moreover, the meltwater of glacially fed valleys is decreasing, not increasing – or certainly not by a noticeable factor (the worries are of people without water in the future, not being flooded out today, or of increased erosion of glacial streambanks since the 1970s). Talk of the breakup of the Antarctic shelf ice masses, which are floating, does not raise concerns for sea-levels; you need more ice leaving the central masses for this to happen. Besides that, for ice to flow faster because it is warmer, the warming must have reached the glacial floor: there is no evidence that this has happened.
As for the second method, direct melting of the glacial masses, the topography of both Antarctic and Greenland create only a few places where new rivers of meltwater can be created. There aren’t any. On this aspect, one must realise that neither the Antarctic nor Greenland have (even lower portions) at a melting temperature for more than 4 months of the year, and not at the same time. So any melting must be compressed into a different 4-month period at either end of the globe, with two 2-month periods of nothing happening anywhere. Which should show up in a twice-yearly spike and node in the rise of sea-level. Which hasn’t occurred.
Satellite data of the centres of Antarctic and Greenland ice masses and the computerized mass calculations be damned. Any loss greater than that of the 60s must be observable in either valley glacier iceberg density or coastline river output. The mass math is an artefact if shipping isn’t compromised or river-mouth gravel bars aren’t extending seaward in very specific places for very specific, short periods of time.
BTW, here’s the page where you get all these pretty graphs and data:
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/en/news/ocean-indicators/mean-sea-level/products-images/index.html
I suggest that you download the data now, before it gets “corrected.”
So long as the continent of Antarctica is parked at the south pole, moisture drifting on to the continent will be locked away forever in terms of humanity lifetimes, and there ain’t nuttin’ anyone can do about it.
The simple answer to all this is SURFACE TENSION. Only the sun’s rays can penetrate the surface tension of the ocean and heat the ocean. You can heat the atmosphere/co2 all you like, the physical heat can not penetrate the ocean’s surface. It’s not surprising that as the sun has gone quiet the ocean is not recieving as much energy and therefore shringking slighty. If anybody wants to test this try heating a bucket with a heat gun. You cannot heat water from above.
As discovered by Buzz Fluhart, eh, Robert?
Visible light penetretas easily in water and warms it “underway”, IR does not, water don´t conduct heat very well and so IR makes water evaporate, not warmer.
The annual range seems to be about 24.0 mm. Over 2004.5 to 2011.5, it looks like 0.57 mm/yr rise.
What would the accuracy be with a range of 24 mm?
Is the eyeball estimate of 0.57 mm/yr out of whack?
Where does the 2 mm/yr come from, and Australia’s official 4.1 mm/yr come from?
australias supposed rises come from thin air and empty heads..flannery for starters..and Guanos maundering waffle with NO real anything to back it up.
Doug Proctor asks, “Where does the 2 mm/yr come from, and Australia’s official 4.1 mm/yr come from?”
It’s hard to fathom. Here are NOAA’s trend calculations for Australia’s best tide stations; none are anywhere near 4 mm/yr:
Townsville, Australia 1959-2006 1.25 +/- 0.40 mm/yr
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.shtml?stnid=680-051
Newcastle, Australia 1925-1988 2.19 +/- 0.48 mm/yr
http://web.archive.org/web/20101206164341/http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.shtml?stnid=680-133
Fremantle, Australia 1897-2003 1.48 +/- 0.27 mm/yr
http://web.archive.org/web/20101206164607/http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.shtml?stnid=680-471
Sydney, Australia 1886-2003 0.59 +/- 0.11 mm/yr
http://web.archive.org/web/20110708170758/http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.shtml?stnid=680-140
PSMSL’s graphs looks a little different from NOAA’s, but still show no acceleration in sea level rise since about the mid-1930s (i.e., since before major anthropogenic CO2 emissions), and nothing that could justify quoting such high rates of SLR. Here’s their graph for Sydney:
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.annual.plots/196_high.png
Eyeballing that graph, I calculate the rate or SLR as (7035 – 6960) / (2010 – 1935)= 1.0 mm/yr
Steven,
I downloaded the data you pointed to (oceanobs.com) and did a little analysis. I used Excel to locate the maximum level for each year and put it in order of highest to lowest, to 4dps, 2009 0.4979, 2010 0.4969, 2005 0.4933, 2007 0.4910, 2006 0.4908, 2011 0.4907, 2008 0.4906, 2004 0.4886, making 2011 the third lowest, ie: 2008 and 2004 were lower.
Cheers
Robin
Thanks Steven,
My simple analysis was too simple. It only looked at the calendar year and ignored the cyclical nature of the data. The 2011 set also picked up the previous peak which hid the lower and later peak. Regards, Robin
Willis on WUWT shows ARGO temperature data of the oceans. You show satellite data on sea-levels. Both seem to me to have a lot of non-repetitive variation in detail, such that the +/- is considerable. Any of the discussed climate “anomaly” trends seem to have a +/- considerably less than the two datasets shown.
Is the apparent visual difference in “fuzz” between dataset and manipulation-interpretation real? When you centre a line within the error-bar, does that mean the likelihood of the actual value fall to near-certainty at the centre?
What use is sea level data without adjusting for barometric pressure?
Other than projecting a false conclusion…
Over a period of several years, the average barometric pressure is a wash. Same with the seasonal correction. There is no reason to mess around with long term data.
Obviously it is not a wash.
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/images/news/indic/msl/MSL_Serie_MERGED_Global_IB_RWT_GIA_Adjust.gif
And why do you ignore isostatic rebound?
No offense, but it sure appears that you are ignorant of science and just making a specious argument to support your paranoid perspective.
Obviously you haven’t thought this through very clearly, and you are attempting to make a circular proof. – using the Aviso charts to prove the correctness of the Aviso charts.
http://www.real-science.com/leave-data
GIA is bullshit. Falling sea floors lowers the top surface of the ocean, not raises it. It is a classic accounting error – counting a liability as an asset. Do you add your income tax on to your net income?
Try using your noggin instead of calling names.
Unlike your circular reasoning where you support your blog post with another of your blog posts.
Sorry but I don’t have time for your nonsense.
SkyHunter, obviously you do if you had to make that comment here.
My bad. I assumed that you knew how to follow links.
SkyHunter asks, “And why do you ignore isostatic rebound?”
Because sea level is the level of the top of the ocean.
If you trust Peltier’s 0.3 mm/yr GIA number (which I don’t), then it makes sense to add it if you’re doing water mass balance or depth calculations, but not sea level. It is just plain wrong to add that to the measured sea level trend and call the result a “sea level” trend.
Think about it! Consider a hypothetical example. Suppose you have a sea level benchmark tide gauge anchored to the bedrock at an (unusual) shoreline location which is exhibiting no movement at all, up or down, relative to the Earth’s center of gravity. Now, suppose that the sea level measurements at that tide gauge show absolutely no year-to-year change at all. Would you say that sea level was stable, or that it was rising 0.3 mm/year?
Obviously, in that hypothetical example, sea level is stable. But if you added Peltier’s 0.3 mm/yr GIA you’d erroneously report that sea level was rising.
(A second problem is the dubious quality of the GIA numbers. We’re starting to get actual GPS-measured data for land movement at some of the tide gauges, and it doesn’t look at all like Peltier’s model-derived GIA numbers for those locations. So I’d be surprised if his unverifiable 0.3 mm/yr GIA number for the hypothesized sinking of the ocean floor is correct.)
“Envisat unadjusted sea level”
Come on guys, you know when they “adjust” the data it will show exactly what they want it to. We mere mortals have no right to ever question the noble, corageous “scientists” whose livelihood depends on them properly adjusting the data to keep the gub’mint munnie flowing freely. Now just shut up, pay your taxes and let them *save* us from ourselves.
Yep. The “correction” more than quadrupled the rate of SLR.
Floating ice that melts does what (in reference to volume)?
Increasing or decreasing soluable salt content weighted by gravity does what (in reference to volume)?
When speaking of continental rebound following glacial weight decrease doesn’t jive with just land mass above sea level, obviously. As rebounds ocurr we also see spreading IE: ditributed rebounds from both land and sea-floors.
Over long periods of time the gravitational pull from the moon reforms the areas we don’t see or measure IE: sea floor caverns, depressions and the bathtub walls…
All The Best!
AlaskaHound, floating ice has no significant effect on coastal sea level when it melts (or when it freezes).
http://www.burtonsys.com/climate/sea_ice/
Floating ice that melts does what (in reference to volume)?
Increasing or decreasing soluable salt content weighted by gravity does what (in reference to volume)?
When speaking of continental rebound following glacial weight decrease doesn’t jive with just land mass above sea level, obviously. As rebounds ocurr we also see spreading IE: distributed rebounds from both land and sea-floors.
Over long periods of time the gravitational pull from the moon reforms the areas we don’t see or measure IE: sea floor caverns, depressions and the bathtub walls…
All The Best!