Global Sea Levels Dropping in 2011

[BethesdaWX]

University of Colorado Satellite Data Showing a Drop in Global Sea Level in 2011, removing Isostatic

Really Could Be Just a Blip, posting this more out of interest than anything else.

He explains EACH STEP he took, just for the doubters.

http://wattsupwithth...end/#more-38140

Let me explain it to you. What you saw in the graph at Aviso was “smoothed results from the data”, not the actual data itself. Furthermore, despite the fact that they obviously shared their data in the past (because they put links into their page for that purpose), they were not doing so for the past 24 hours that I have been accessing their site – maybe they sent it all out to be “cleaned”.

I have other graphs, but I will just show one more using all of the satellites. This one used real data, not the processed results chosen by Aviso and not even shared by them.

Another curiosity:

P. Solar says:April 17, 2011 at 10:27 amThe other reason things have gone quiet may be an unprecedented swing in the Jason 2 calibration curve.

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/calibration.php

I don’t know if they have published any findings on why it jumped by 10 mm at the end of 2009 but if it has skipped again maybe they are frantically trying to tidy things up before publishing data.

==============================================================

[wxmeddler]

If you are arguing the 10mm drop in the Jason-2 measurement, you could also argue that the sea was rapidly rising by 20 mm according to the GFO in 2001. If you are referring to the 2010-2011 year down turn, then you cant ignore the increase from the past 20 year increase.

Personal Opinion: Data doesn't go back far enough to either prove or disprove the sea-level rise by satellite observations.

[BethesdaWX]

If you are arguing the 10mm drop in the Jason-2 measurement, you could also argue that the sea was rapidly rising by 20 mm according to the GFO in 2001. If you are referring to the 2010-2011 year down turn, then you cant ignore the increase from the past 20 year increase.

Personal Opinion: Data doesn't go back far enough to either prove or disprove the sea-level rise by satellite observations.

I agree with your "personal oninion".

but who says I was arguing either? There was a Spike in ENVISAT in 2009, of course there are spikes, but the JASON2 dataset has never had an anomalous spike before.

Also I thinks its JASON1, not JASON2.

[Vandy]

Looks like the same conclusion could have been reached in 1999 and 2007...

[BethesdaWX]

Looks like the same conclusion could have been reached in 1999 and 2007...

Not really, the trend before our current drop is down pretty good.

but still, I don't think it's anything to gawk over.

[BethesdaWX]

Skier why do you come online here at like 2AM or 3AM everyday?

Shouldn't you be sleeping? Warmists need their sleep!

[skierinvermont]

Personal Opinion: Data doesn't go back far enough to either prove or disprove the sea-level rise by satellite observations.

Well then you would be wrong. Sea level rise during the satellite era is "known to be very accurate, 2.8 +/-.4mm/yr as determined from TOPEX/POSEIDON and Jason altimeters." For the period 1993-2003.

http://www.eos.ubc.c...003RG000139.pdf

[BethesdaWX]

Well then you would be wrong. Sea level rise during the satellite era is "known to be very accurate, 2.8 +/-.4mm/yr as determined from TOPEX/POSEIDON and Jason altimeters." For the period 1993-2003.

http://www.eos.ubc.c...003RG000139.pdf

He said "data doesn't go back far enough validate, meaning, to know whether sea level rise now is exceptional or not.

[skierinvermont]

Skier why do you come online here at like 2AM or 3AM everyday?

Shouldn't you be sleeping? Warmists need their sleep!

Because I am often out all day and cleaning up the garbage you spew in here every day is my bedtime routine.

[BethesdaWX]

"sea level rise" is relative dude, if we go back 2000 years, our current sea level is nothing to gawk at.

But look at the past 100 years and it looks crazy.

Remember not to compare proxy & meaurement Data.

[BethesdaWX]

Because I am often out all day and cleaning up the garbage you spew in here every day is my bedtime routine.

Start with cleaning up yourself. Your "shrinkage" is laughable

[Clifford]

The "blip" is just that... and will likely recover in the next reading.

Since about April of 2000, the Sea Surface Temperatures have dropped, so one would expect at least a plateau for the steric component at of the sea surface temperatures. Just another measurement to confirm that there hasn't been any "warming" since the end of the El Niño, and the beginning of the La Niña cycle (as others have metioned also occurred in previous La Niña cycles).

We'll see what the future brings.

[skierinvermont]

"sea level rise" is relative dude, if we go back 2000 years, our current sea level is nothing to gawk at.

Nobody says it is something to gawk at. Another strawman.

I believe it is widely accepted sea levels were somewhat higher during the MWP. However, we will shortly surpass those levels.

[BethesdaWX]

Nobody says it is something to gawk at. Another strawman.

I believe it is widely accepted sea levels were somewhat higher during the MWP. However, we will shortly surpass those levels.

The proxy data cannot be compared to Measurement data............However, proxy data for Sea Level today can only reach until 1960 or so, unfortunately....because there is a Lag between available development in the readings.

Its the measurement data that shows the increase, not the proxy data, which is still increasing through 1960, but is well below the measurement data.

Proxy data stops after 1960.

[skierinvermont]

The proxy data cannot be compared to Measurement data........

Yes it can.

[BethesdaWX]

Yes it can.

Unfortunately, No it can't. Do you think proxy data has the same error bar as measurement data?

Proof? Proxy data does not match the extremities of measurement data thru 1960. Proxy data stops at 1960.

[skierinvermont]

Unfortunately, No it can't. Do you think proxy data has the same error bar as measurement data?

Proof? Proxy data does not match the extremities of measurement data thru 1960. Proxy data stops at 1960.

Just because error bars are frequently larger from proxy data doesn't stop us from making intelligent comparisons between proxy data and instrumental data. One must keep in mind the larger error bars and the significance of that. The McShane and Wyner 2010 paper is a good example of how to statistically compare proxy data and instrumental data. Numerous other reconstructions use statistical techniques to compare instrumental data to proxy data that has larger error bars.

This is how, for example, scientists compute probabilities such as "there is a 70% probability that the 2000-2009 decade was the warmest in the last 2,000 years." Statements such as this take into account the larger error bars for proxy data.

[BethesdaWX]

Just because error bars are frequently larger from proxy data doesn't stop us from making intelligent comparisons between proxy data and instrumental data. One must keep in mind the larger error bars and the significance of that. The McShane and Wyner 2010 paper is a good example of how to statistically compare proxy data and instrumental data. Numerous other reconstructions use statistical techniques to compare instrumental data to proxy data that has larger error bars.

This is how, for example, scientists compute probabilities such as "there is a 70% probability that the 2000-2009 decade was the warmest in the last 2,000 years." Statements such as this take into account the larger error bars for proxy data.

There is a difference between an intelligent comparison & an accurate comparison . Knowing proxies thru 1960 were well below the measurement data..... the same can be assumed for the MWP in that it is under-estimated.

The type of proxy you use, whether its a good proxy or a bad proxy, will determine the "mean" within the error bars, which is why some studies show less MWP, and other show a MWP much warmer than today...both appear in peer reviewed literature.

Examples: Tree Rings are Terrible proxies, while Ice Cores are Fairly Good proxies.

Also needs to be taken into account................. other impacts besides temperature that affect what the proxy displays, and this is often missed/unknown, or hard to "calibrate" for.

[skierinvermont]

There is a difference between an intelligent comparison & an accurate comparison . Knowing proxies thru 1960 were well below the measurement data..... the same can be assumed for the MWP in that it is under-estimated.

The type of proxy you use, whether its a good proxy or a bad proxy, will determine the "mean" within the error bars, which is why some studies show less MWP, and other show a MWP much warmer than today...both appear in peer reviewed literature.

Examples: Tree Rings are Terrible proxies, while Ice Cores are Fairly Good proxies.

Also needs to be taken into account................. other impacts besides temperature that affect what the proxy displays, and this is often missed/unknown, or hard to "calibrate" for.

There are established reasons for why tree ring proxies don't show 20th century warming which do not apply to the MWP.

Moreover, it doesn't matter whether we use tree ring or ice core or ocean sediment or any other type of proxy. The basic picture remains the same. Moberg 2005 does NOT use tree ring proxies to reconstruct multi-centennial temperature variation, and yet it finds the past two decades were both likely warmer than any others in the past 2,000 years.

[BethesdaWX]

There are established reasons for why tree ring proxies don't show 20th century warming which do not apply to the MWP.

Moreover, it doesn't matter whether we use tree ring or ice core or ocean sediment or any other type of proxy. The basic picture remains the same. Moberg 2005 does NOT use tree ring proxies to reconstruct multi-centennial temperature variation, and yet it finds the past two decades were both likely warmer than any others in the past 2,000 years.

Its not just about the 20th century warming. There are no "established" reasons, there are theorized & speculated reasons, no more.

Moberg Et Al

Showing the peak in the 1940's, stops in 1980 approximately.

Removing Tree Rings "adapted"

[skierinvermont]

Moberg concludes "we find no evidence for any earlier periods in the last two millenia with warmer conditions than the post 1990-era."

Moberg 2005 specifically excluded tree ring data from reconstructing multi-centennial variability. So even when one excludes tree rings, one finds current temperatures are likely warmer than any period in the last 2,000.

[BethesdaWX]

Dude, Moberg Et Al does use tree ring data. When it is removed, everything changes.

http://books.google....epage&q&f=false

FYI his re-analysis is Northern Hemisphere oriented.

[skierinvermont]

Dude, Moberg Et Al does use tree ring data.Wheit is removed, everything changes.

http://books.google....epage&q&f=false

It uses them to represent short term decadal variation. They are not used to represent the multi-centennial variation, which is what I said. Read carefully.

The graph you posted to me looks exactly the same as the normal Moberg graph except someone has left off the period 1970-2000. It doesn't look like it is "tree-ring" removed, it looks like it is just terminated earlier. Post the link for where this image came from.

[BethesdaWX]

It uses them to represent short term decadal variation. They are not used to represent the multi-centennial variation, which is what I said. Read carefully.

The graph you posted to me looks exactly the same as the normal Moberg graph except someone has left off the period 1970-2000. It doesn't look like it is "tree-ring" removed, it looks like it is just terminated earlier. Post the link for where this image came from.

He uses them throughout the dataset the resultution doesn't change the fact that they are used the entire time...they are a terrible proxy.

Its in the Link FYI its embedded

[skierinvermont]

He uses them throughout the dataset the resultution doesn't change the fact that they are used the entire time...they are a terrible proxy.

Its in the Link FYI its embedded

They are used only to create short term variation in the reconstruction. All of the long-term variability is created by non-tree ring proxies. That was the entire point of Moberg 2005. To remove the tree-ring component from the reconstruction of long-term temperature variability, and in the process critique the Mann hockeystick which shows much less long-term variability.

[BethesdaWX]

They are used only to create short term variation in the reconstruction. All of the long-term variability is created by non-tree ring proxies. That was the entire point of Moberg 2005. To remove the tree-ring component from the reconstruction of long-term temperature variability, and in the process critique the Mann hockeystick which shows much less long-term variability.

Not true

http://books.google.com/books?id=8-m8nXB8GB4C&pg=PA471&lpg=PA471&dq=Moberg+et+al+uses+treerings&source=bl&ots=hyepv8xcGY&sig=VrCbut4qYluqVDH1wZAJ235hDF4&hl=en&ei=5eusTYqVMpPegQfV8YWMDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

[skierinvermont]

Not true

http://books.google....epage&q&f=false

Why are you linking to the IPCC report? How about we just read Moberg 2005?

It says quite clearly that short term variability (<80 years) was reconstructed using tree rings while long term (>80 year) variability was reconstructed using low-resolution proxies such as pollen, ocean sediment, boreholes, etc.

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/MobergEtAl2005.pdf

[BethesdaWX]

Why are you linking to the IPCC report? How about we just read Moberg 2005?

It says quite clearly that short term variability (<80 years) was reconstructed using tree rings while long term (>80 year) variability was reconstructed using low-resolution proxies such as pollen, ocean sediment, boreholes, etc.

You'd find out if you read it, the IPCC report references moberg et al. and how he uses tree rings. I would quote, it, but it won't let me copy-paste.

Moberg Et. Al. is not only NH based, but tree rings are the predominate dataset.

[skierinvermont]

You'd find out if you read it, the IPCC report references moberg et al. and how he uses tree rings. I would quote, it, but it won't let me copy-paste.

Moberg Et. Al. is not only NH based, but tree rings are the predominate dataset.

The page of the IPCC you are referring me to confirms exactly what I am saying. Here is the quote which I have retyped:

"Moberg et al. 2005 used a mixture of tree ring and other proxy-based climate reconstructions to represent changes at short and longer time scales, respectively, across the NH."

In other words, tree rings reconstructed the short-term variability, while "other" proxies reconstructed long-term variability. Which is exactly what I said.

[BethesdaWX]

The page of the IPCC you are referring me to confirms exactly what I am saying. Here is the quote which I have retyped. "Moberg et al. 2005 used a mixture of tree ring and other proxy-based climate reconstructions to represent changes at short and longer time scales, respectively, across the NH."

In other words, tree rings reconstructed the short-term variability, while "other" proxies reconstructed long-term variability. Which is exactly what I said.

the recent period does not look particularly warmer compared to the MWP." However, the mean of the six series did depict a warmer CWP; but they describe this relationship as "a bias/artifact in the full RCS reconstruction where the MWP, because it is expressed at different times in the six long records, is 'averaged out' (i.e., flattened) compared to the recent period which shows a much more globally consistent signal."

Short term Climate variability tree rings used throughout the dataset you numbnut. It doesn't matter since they are used to calculate the mean.

The weighting of Tree Ring proxies...as in, "short term" are in large number, so removing them would alter the mean. The proxy choices in general and their error bars are questionable in the Hockeystick and anything that looks like it.

NH Proxy reconstructuon adapted from Ljingvist et al, removing higher error bar proxies.