Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Bicycles Can End Bad Weather
- “Gender-responsive climate action”
- Ellen Flees To The UK
- HUD Climate Advisor
- Causes Of Increased Storminess
- Scientist Kamala Harris
- The End Of Polar Bears
- Cats And Hamsters Cause Hurricanes
- Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- New BBC Climate Expert
- 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- “the United States has suffered a “precipitous increase” in hurricane strikes”
- Thing Of The Past Returns
- “Impossible Heatwaves”
- Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- “Not A Mandate”
- Up Is Down
- The Clean Energy Boom
- Climate Change In Spain
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
Recent Comments
- arn on Bicycles Can End Bad Weather
- arn on “Gender-responsive climate action”
- Greg in NZ on Bicycles Can End Bad Weather
- Peter Carroll on Bicycles Can End Bad Weather
- dm on “Gender-responsive climate action”
- Francis Barnett on “Gender-responsive climate action”
- czechlist on “Gender-responsive climate action”
- Jehzsa on “Gender-responsive climate action”
- Peter Carroll on Causes Of Increased Storminess
- arn on HUD Climate Advisor
No fair, Steven. That could be entirely caused by Obama.
RTF
Don’t be dumb. Subtract out the annual cycle, and you can clearly see an upward trend.
ftp://ftp.aviso.oceanobs.com/pub/oceano/AVISO/indicators/msl/MSL_Serie_MERGED_Global_IB_RWT_NoGIA_Adjust.txt
Cut there, adjust a little here and then we have more bullshit, See sea level rising!
Pretending to be dumb is how blogs like this survive.
What a stupid comment David. A correctly performed “annual cycle correction” would not change the slope. I started and ended the graph at the same time of year.
Your comment is appropriate for your blog though.
I guess we’ll just agree to disagree on the definition of ‘dumb’. My definition would be ignoring a billion year old cycle of climate change, sea levels, CO2 levels, heat waves, cold waves, polar ice levels, forest fires & storms, and claim we’re now the cause of that cycle.
Please explain how an annual cycle correction can change the multi-year trend. If it was done correctly, it would smooth out the sine wave but have no impact on the slope.
The trend across a sine wave is not always zero, even if you take a full year. Think about it. Consider a single year, starting at zero, going up, then down, then up again. If you calculate the trend, all the positive values are in the first half, and all the negative values in the second half, so the trend will be artificially negative.
This is what you’ve done here: the cycle is positive at the start of your graph and negative at the end, which introduces a (fake) downward trend which serendipitously cancels out the (real) upward trend.
This is the same damn mistake that you made (and corrected) on Anthony Watts’ blog two years ago, except that time you introduced a fake positive trend.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/02/arctic-ice-increasing-by-50000-km2-per-year/
You really don’t learn, do you?
I gave you a link to the cycle-corrected data. Use it, and graph it. Then correct this post, like you did the one on wattsupwiththat.com
The graph is for three years. The seasonal adjustment is a blind mechanical adjustment which really serves no purpose.
Graphing three years means that your error is only 1/3 as bad as it would have been if you used a single year. It’s still large enough to matter. When you did it for IJIS, you used 8 years and were still wrong.
Trends for a cyclical phenomenon are severely affected by your choice of endpoint, even if you use whole cycles. You have to remove the seasonal cycle before you start looking for trends.
The 3 mm/year trend reported is at least 2X out of line with tide gauges. At some point they need to start dealing with reality
Even in your graph it’s clear if you look – this year’s minimum sea level is the same as the average sea level of the preceding two years.
It’s very simple, see, once you adjust out the “known” “Obama effect”, then the latent “anthropogenic sea level rise” becomes visible to even the casual observer.
Of course, the United States government should be preparing to evacuate its coastal areas on election day, because if Obama loses, there may be a very rapid rebound in sea levels to their level of least resistance. After all, who knows how much of that deluge of meltwater from the last four years that he has been holding back from the coastlines all this time? He may suddenly stop that if he loses the election. He may really let us have it, to teach us all a lesson we’ll be sure to remember.
RTF
From the data I have seen, the level has been rising around 2 mm/yr (or a little less, about 1.7 mm/yr) for the last 50 years, but natural variation makes any time period less than 10 years or so insufficient to talk about an irreversible change in the longer-term trend. There have been other periods, since 1970, of a few years duration, of zero or even negative rise, which of course have been offset by other periods of faster rise — which the alarmists use to scare people with, fraudulently or incompetently, take your pick.
According to Bruce Douglas,
It is well established that sea level trends obtained from tide gauge records shorter than about 50-60 years are corrupted by interdecadal sea level variation
http://www.psmsl.org/train_and_info/training/gloss/gb/gb3/douglas.html
Hi Steve,
Your graph’s starting point appears to be about a quarter year late compared to its ending point. I”d paste in my graph but I don’t see how.
-kim
Hi Steve,
It looks like the minimum this year is in line with the rising minimums of the past 20 years. It’s just that the min and max of 2011 were way out of line, and way low, compared to the rising mins and maxs of the previous 20 years.
-kim
And the maximum was lower than the previous two years
Hi Steve,
Yes, the 2011 min and max were lower than the previous two years’ mins and maxs. But 2011 appears to an exception to the twenty year rise because the 2012 min, way above the previous two years, appears to be returning to the twenty year linearly rising norm. We haven’t seen the 2012 peak to know if it will return to the twenty year linearly rising norm as well.
Just draw a straight line througn twenty years of troughs and 2012 will fall on that line. 2011 is the exception.
-kim
Aviso trends are at least 2X of PSMSL and NOAA tide gauge trends.
Envisat showed essentially no sea level rise before they trashed it.
Cherry picking and manipulating season is on.
There are US Government Coast Surveys from the 1850’s .
Has anyone done Comparative Surveys of 1850’s with 2010 to see if there has been Inundation of tidelands by SLR over the past 160 years?
( Obviously excluding local erosion/ accretion processes due to Winds, Waves, Fill, Dredging, Inlet migration etc.)
Bill Price Pine Knoll Shores NC
Steven you’ve printed the wrong dataset, surely completely accidentally. The real one is here:
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/en/news/ocean-indicators/mean-sea-level/
Stop being a moron. The data set I gave you is the measured data. You are showing crap with all kinds of upwards adjustments.
Oooh, are altimeter data processing engineers & scientists also part of the GCCC? Of course all known physical correction needs to be made before the data is even close to usable:
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/en/news/ocean-indicators/mean-sea-level/processing-corrections.html
Seriously, your idea that physics should be disregarded in favour of “raw” measurements is moronic at best. It’s unfortunate that the denialismosphere is so misuneducated that such arguments can gain a foothold.
Gondo that is an interesting link. The map at the bottom of that link shows quite rapid rising in the South Pacific. The Australians closed down their monitoring on Pacific Islands a couple of years ago due to no observable rise. The level rise over the last 5 years around NZ and East Australia is virtually zero. The fact that some of the western Pacific atolls appear to be drowning is due to that of the plate sliding under it’s neighboring plate, which is not quite the same as drowning due to sea level increase. But makes for great catastrophic news bytes.
Measuring sea levels is a bit problematic anyway.
What methods are used?
What is the measurement uncertainty?
How are sea levels affected by wind?
How are measurements affected by the orbital path of the moon vs the tilt of the planetary axis?
How regularly do the sun and moon’s gravity act to exacerbate or attenuate tidal forces?
What effect does tectonic activity like rising or falling sea floor levels have on the average sea level?
How many things could affect the apparent sea level that have not been accounted for?
How much more accurate and numerous are current measurements as compared to measurements from decades past when fewer measurements and more primitive methods were used?
What results do we get when we do gage reliability and repeatability studies on the various methods and instruments that all these data have been gathered from?
I really don’t see how anyone can make an assertion one way or another without it being entirely gratuitous and simplistic unless you can reliably and accurately account for all the known and unknown factors that can have an effect on what the sea level seems to be from one time period as compared to another.
As for me, I’m still putting “Water World” firmly into the science fantasy category.