Dip in Global Sea Level Won’t Save Tuvalu

SEA level is measured in two ways: from tidal gauges and by satellite altimeter.   According to the University of Colorado, Bolder, since August 1992 the satellite altimeters have been measuring sea level on a global basis with unprecedented accuracy and since 2005 the steady upward trend has stumbled.  

The recent dip could not qualify as a trend, but it is interesting – particularly given that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide continue to rise.

Of course even a drop in the global sea level may not save Tuvalu because the great majority of oceanic islands, including Tuvalu, were formed by volcanic activity. While the volcanoes are active, the islands rise relative to the global averaged sea-level. When volcanic activity stops, the islands will cool and eventually start to sink. So there are islands rising and sinking all the time – and Tuvalu should be sinking.

[Hat tip to Jack Moevich for the link to the latest data on global sea levels.]

47 Responses to Dip in Global Sea Level Won’t Save Tuvalu

  1. Bob Tisdale December 10, 2008 at 2:43 am #

    Jennifer: Would Tuvalu have the same variations in sea level as Indonesia? That’s the closest subset the University of Colorado provides. Indonesia sea level appears to be a function of PWP surface and subsurface temperature, not global temperature.
    It has an unusual appearance because of its inverse relationship with NINO3.4 SST anomalies mixed in with an upward trend. Too bad the time span is so short. You really can’t tell anything from it.

  2. SJT December 10, 2008 at 7:05 am #

    “Jennifer: Would Tuvalu have the same variations in sea level as Indonesia? That’s the closest subset the University of Colorado provides. Indonesia sea level appears to be a function of PWP surface and subsurface temperature, not global temperature.”

    That’s because the IPCC already stated that most of the sea level rise so far will be due to the temperature of the sea itself. Hot water expands. Maybe if you read up on what you are critical of, you would be better prepared to understand just what it is you are arguing against.

  3. Luke December 10, 2008 at 7:42 am #

    Jen – the upward trend has NOT stumbled – the last two data points are actually above the trend line. Looks like it’s actually INCREASING again. AGW is baaaacckkkk !

    Well after all – you guys invented wiggle watching. LOLZ

  4. david December 10, 2008 at 7:56 am #

    You should use the figure at http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_ib_ns_global.jpg which accounts for pressure and seasonal effects (eg the locking up of seasonal snow etc). The highest spot and 60 day average sea levels have both occurred this year.

    Once again you have got the science wrong.

  5. The Engineer December 10, 2008 at 8:05 am #

    A bit old but very definite article on Tuvalu:


  6. Bob Tidale December 10, 2008 at 8:12 am #

    SJT: You wrote: “That’s because the IPCC already stated that most of the sea level rise so far will be due to the temperature of the sea itself. Hot water expands. Maybe if you read up on what you are critical of, you would be better prepared to understand just what it is you are arguing against.”

    I’m very well read on the subject, thank you. Did I argue about anything, SJT? I made a statement that’s logical. The PWP temperature or some facsimile thereof would drive sea level there. Or are you sensitive to someone saying the phrase global temperature? Then I concluded my comment about the graph I linked with, “It has an unusual appearance because of its inverse relationship with NINO3.4 SST anomalies mixed in with an upward trend. Too bad the time span is so short. You really can’t tell anything from it.” Did you fail to read that far or are you arguing for argument sake?

  7. Bob Tisdale December 10, 2008 at 8:14 am #

    Hmm, even I can’t spell my name correctly today.

  8. Bill Illis December 10, 2008 at 8:26 am #

    Sea level up to October, 2008 can be obtained at this website.

    Click on “time series” and the various other signal processing options.


    This is the latest sea level chart and there was a very significant drop since this summer.


    The Indian Ocean is the only ocean basin with any appreciable sea level rise since 1992. All the other oceans are more-or-less flat.


  9. RW December 10, 2008 at 8:39 am #

    Why would anyone possibly think that they could somehow relate sea level changes over three years to atmospheric CO2? Either they just don’t understand the timescales involved in unforced vs externally forced variations, or they are deliberately trying to mislead people.

  10. janama December 10, 2008 at 9:04 am #

    and since ~1880


    there’s no way you can associate sea level rise with AGW. It doesn’t even rise and fall with the temp chart.

  11. SJT December 10, 2008 at 9:07 am #

    “A bit old but very definite article on Tuvalu:”

    An old and out of date article on Tuvalu, you mean. The time span they used was way too short. Levels have already risen since then.

    Moral of the story. Don’t send an astrophysicist on a climatologists errrand.

  12. wes george December 10, 2008 at 9:07 am #

    Ya know, it sometimes seems like this blog posts equivocal data out of a sheer hope that the AGW apocalypse hypothesis will NOT come to pass.

    I’m beginning to suspect that Jennifer is some sort of rational humanist–with the best interests of the biosphere and humanity at heart–blind to the obvious fact that we need a good old-fashion biblical apocalypse to keep us on a narrow path towards the latest fad in societal subjugation.

    The real tragedy would be if a climate catastrophes did NOT occur. Fortunately, we have zealous acolytes of the climate change cult to barrack for the inevitable apocalypse.

    From a link Luke enthusiastically posted

    “We will need a WWII-style approach, but that can only happen after we get the global warming Pearl Harbor or, more likely, multiple Pearl Harbors.”

    Rising sea level is good news, you dills!

    AGW is baaaacckkkk ! Zombie-like, Luke cheers on the sea level rises.

    May Tuvalu disappear beneath the Pacific, the sooner the better, that’ll show ye with little faith who’s really “forcing” the climate.

    SJT loves that word, “forcing.” hmmm.

  13. Ian Mott December 10, 2008 at 9:08 am #

    Once again we have a graphic based on the anomaly alone which amounts to a serious misrepresentation of the facts. We have a trend line rising at the rate of 3.3mm/year over a 16 year interval which appears as a very steep (dishonest) incline.

    If this same data was applied to a vertical scale that includes the global mean tidal highs and lows we would have a truer and fairer picture of the magnitude and relevance of the change. This, diddly squat.

    Note also that we are only given a 60 day smoothing and a single best fit line. Where is the annual smothing or 5 year moving mean that is routinely applied to the temperature series? It is, after all, the change in water temperature that will drive most change in Sea Level but the same statistical conventions have been abandoned for the sake of alarmism. Plus ca change..

  14. sod December 10, 2008 at 9:14 am #

    i fail to see the dip.

    doesn t it look very much like 2002? or 1998?

    are we increasing from “dip” to “dip”???

  15. janama December 10, 2008 at 9:27 am #

    this image shows clearly why Tuvalu is concerned. The ocean around it is rising – yet to the east it’s dropped. Such is climate variability.


  16. janama December 10, 2008 at 9:33 am #


    sorry – select Jason 1 – map[

  17. Bill Illis December 10, 2008 at 10:01 am #

    How about if we select South Pacific and just take the seasonal signal out (since there appears to be a very large seasonal change in the South Pacific.)

    No change since 1992 in the South Pacific but there has been a drop of 25 mms since the summer (that is a wow number for sea level).


  18. Eli Rabett December 10, 2008 at 12:22 pm #

    If you look at the sea level rise as measured by satellite at Tuvalu, it is clearly rising at about 6 mm/year on top of an annual cycle of about 20 cm.

    BTW, the satellite measures the local sea level anomaly with respect to the global mean sea level and not the local land level as given by tide gauges. So the bit about the island sinking just makes things worse.

  19. janama December 10, 2008 at 1:19 pm #

    wow – so you are saying the sea around Tuvalu is rising at 206mm per year?

    I notice you ignore the Jason-1 (later satellite so probably more accurate) that states a 1.3mm annual rise for northern pacific or 1.0mm for sth pacific.

  20. wes george December 10, 2008 at 2:00 pm #

    Eli Rabbet, Good to see you’re back.

    Assuming that sea levels are rising at 6mm a year at Tuvalu, as you claim, what would you propose is causing the sea level to rise?

  21. cohenite December 10, 2008 at 10:45 pm #

    eli’s Topex/Poseidon pretty map is not the best one; this one, on p18 is preferable;


    Figure 4 and table 5 are interesting; the adjusted rate for Tuvalu is 5.7 mm/year but it looks to be flat-lining; admittedly the data ends at 2006 and eli’s is up to date but that linear fit showing a 11cm increase over the 16 years looks more fit than linear. The paper refers to a decadal slosh and that is apparent on p 6, fig 1. Whatever sea rise is happening it sure isn’t uniform.

  22. Eli Rabett December 11, 2008 at 11:48 am #

    Oh cohenite, you did notice that the report you cited only used data up to the summer 2005?


    On the other hand, the very warm water they show in the region of Tuvalu also contributes to sea level rise there. Nevermind

  23. Eli Rabett December 11, 2008 at 11:52 am #

    No janama, Eli is saying that the yearly cycle varies by 206 mm in a year (roughly) which anyone who looks at the Colorado site can check. RTFR friend. The Colorado site integrates Jason data with Topex/Poseidon RTFR friend (Actually it is where Jen got her graph from)

  24. Eli Rabett December 11, 2008 at 11:57 am #

    FWIW, the Aussie site cohenite points to reports from a series of land based sea level gauges that were calibrated by linking to the GPS system. They show that Tuvalu is indeed sinking as Jen said, about 0.2 cm per year opposed to the sea level rise of 5.7 mm/yr. Jen is rapidly becoming the Emily Littela of climate science


  25. janama December 11, 2008 at 2:08 pm #

    from the following website:


    A tide gauge to measure sea level has been in existence at Tuvalu since 1977, run by the University of Hawaii It showed a negligible increase of only 0.07 mm per year over two decades It fell three millimeters between 1995 and 1999. The complete record can still be seen on John Daly’s website: http://www.john-daly.com>www.john-daly.com Obviously this could not be tolerated, so the gauge was closed in 1999 and a new, more modern tide gauge was set up by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology’s National Tidal Center by Flinders University at Adelaide. But Tuvalu refuses to submit to political pressure. The sea level has actually fallen since then Tuvalu cannot be allowed to get away with it. So Greenpeace employed Dr John Hunter. a climatologist of the University of Tasmania, who obligingly “adjusted” the Tuvalu readings upwards to comply with changes in ENSO and those found for the island of Hawaii and, miraculously, he found a sea level rise of “around” 1.2 mm a year which, also miraculously, agrees with the IPCC global figure .

    Since all this seems biased, or politically influenced, Dr John Church of the CSIRO at Hobart, Tasmania, a lead author of the IPCC Chapter on “Sea Level”, plus his colleague Dr Neil White, have sought to reverse actual measured trends by “combining records from tide gauges from all over the world with satellite altimeter data to assess regional variation”. Unsurprisingly, and equally miraculously, they reach the same conclusion as Greenpeace and the IPCC. All this has to be imposed on poor little Tuvalu to “prove” global warming.and speed emigration .

    The IPCC Chapter on Sea Level is one of the more dishonest. It practices two important deceptions. First, it completely fails to mention the fact that many tide gauges are situated close to cities where the land is subsiding because of erection of heavy buildings, or removal of ground water, oil and minerals. It so happens that the island of Hawaii is one of the more heavily populated Pacific islands where the sea level is “rising” because the land is “falling” Another reason for upwards bias is Port Adelaide, Australia, where they decided to increase the water level in the harbour to allow for larger ships, They dredged and built a bar on the harbour. Unsurprisingly, the level rose on the tide-gauge. Corrections for these upwards biases in tide-gauge measurements have never been permitted to be discussed by the IPCC .

    The other deception of the IPCC Sea Level Chapter is in statistics. The sea level averages are so inaccurate that they have to supply only one standard deviation as a measure of inaccuracy, instead of the otherwise universal use of two standard deviations. One standard deviation gives only a one in three chance that the measurement lies outside the limits. Two standard deviations puts it up to one in twenty. If you use the proper figures you find that the accuracy sometimes permits a less than one in twenty chance of a sea level fall. That must never be allowed This whole melancholy story is told in an article in “Science” 2006 Volume 312, pages 734 to 736, It seems that the Greenpeace organisation is now occupying the role of the late Trofim Lysenko in their ability to reverse the findings of scientific research .

    Vincent Gray

  26. Eli Rabett December 11, 2008 at 3:15 pm #

    Oh dear, another buyer of the Brooklyn Bridge. Vinnie also plays a mean game of three card monte on that nz site. Jany, did you happen to notice that 1995 to 1999 falls right across that big El Nino in 1998? and that the satellite record shows a huge fall in sea level at Tuvalu during the El Nino, as a lot of water moved across the Pacific. No? well you could have at Rabett Run


    and that is the SATELLITE record dear, so the fall from 1995 to 1999 measured by the tide gauge and the satellite involved a real, well known, physical effect and had nothing to do with the stardust in Vinnie’s head.

    But what is REALLY ripe is that somewhere around here, cohneite pointed to another set of tidal gauges on the big T run by some Aussies that was calibrated by relation to GPS, and guess what, the satellite and the Aussie tidal gauges agree, and for a bonus we get that the surface subsidence was pretty small. Once again, you guys can;t even point to two things that agree with each other

    The SEAFRAME guys don’t think that much of the Kiwi gauge

    “Precise levelling of the SEAFRAME gauge also incorporated ties to the historical gauge at Funafuti and its benchmarks. The historical gauge was sinking relative to the SEAFRAME primary benchmark by an average of about 1 mm per year. For effective long-term sea level monitoring the vertical stability of tide gauges must be monitored relative to a benchmark network that stretches a fair distance inland to stable ground. The SEAFRAME gauge at Funafuti, which is located around 3 km from the historical gauge, is considered to be vertically stable.”

  27. wes george December 11, 2008 at 4:45 pm #

    Isn’t it good to have Eli back?

    Although he failed to reply to the basic questions we hoped would put the AGW hypothesis to a test about those Churchill temperature records

    Eli likes playing card games around the edges of an issue, but he seems to be unable to cross the bridge to the big picture.

    What’s the point? Why doesn’t Eli come clean and say what he proposes is causing the sea level to rise so that we can move this conversation forward. Work from whatever data sets you find convincing, Eli. Personally, I don’t doubt that sea level could be rising.

    I’d like to know why. You’ve been called, Eli. Show your cards.

  28. cohenite December 11, 2008 at 4:56 pm #

    eli, just for the record I did say the NTF paper had data which ended at 2006, which is the same as the end of 2005; you haven’t addressed what I said about the difference between the NTF’s TOPEX/Poseidon coloured map and yours; the NTF paper also has a different opinion about the alleged virtues of satellite data over in-situ tide gauges;

    “Satellite altimeters have an accuracy of several centimetres in the deep ocean, but are known to be inaccurate in shallow coastal regions. As such they cannot replace in-situ tide gauges. Tide gauges are needed to calibrate the satellite altimeteres and provide accurate and more frequent sea level measurements in specific locations where reliable tide predictions and real time monitoring of extreme sea levels is of prime importance.” (p17)

    It is true that the 1998 El nino had a profound effect on sea levels, but what is mystifying is that subsequent to the El Nino trends have been generally flat at all the islands even those Islands which had no or minimal El Nino dip in sea level (seeFig 4 p9). Also apparent is the ‘slosh’ effect discussed on p18, although this major natural phenomona also does not have a uniform effect on sea level; the point is if major natural factors (although I have been castigated by my betters elsewhere for not appreciating that ENSO is now a product of AGW) have such a uneven pattern how can the subtle AGW effect be so confidently isolated; especially given this;


  29. janama December 11, 2008 at 7:21 pm #

    Beachhead erosion because of the use of sand for building materials; excessive clearance of forest undergrowth for use as fuel; damage to coral reefs from the spread of the Crown of Thorns starfish; cyanide and dynamite fishing damage to the atoll ecology and infrastructure.

    Tuvalu’s problem.

    Stop trying to prop up AGW through their inherent problems.

  30. wes george December 11, 2008 at 8:22 pm #

    “Stop trying to prop up AGW…”

    Is that what Eli is on about, Janama? Why he hasn’t said any such thing!

    Perhaps, Eli would like to step forward and propose a hypothesis to account for the rise in sea levels which he goes on quite interminably about. Let’s all just assume for the moment that sea levels around the globe are rising in real terms over the last century.

    But why might that be?

    Over to you, Eli.

  31. Eli Rabett December 12, 2008 at 12:25 pm #

    Chapter 5 Observations: Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level


  32. Lazlo December 12, 2008 at 3:02 pm #

    SJT: ‘Moral of the story. Don’t send an astrophysicist on a climatologists errrand.’
    You must be talking about James Hansen then…

  33. wes george December 12, 2008 at 4:02 pm #

    One cries “Logic!” and prepares to let slip the dogs of reason… and the bunny hurls a 15 megabyte PDF file of irrelevancies and flees back to the warren. Quite unsporting, really. Maybe another time then, eh?

    Eli, you’re definitely fleet of foot.

  34. Eli Rabett December 12, 2008 at 11:25 pm #

    Wes, Eli’s rates for personal tutoring if $100 US/hr payable at Pay-Pal. You asked about why the sea level was rising. The IPCC chapter handles that. They also have things called references which you can also use if you know how to read.

    Eli sees the amusement in your little game. Now it’s your turn. The bunny in his is quite anxious for you to explain the universe to him. Kind of a grown up (?) version of why daddy, but lets play. Oh yes, Eli would like you to provide two examples.

  35. wes george December 13, 2008 at 8:05 am #

    Gosh, Eli, I invite you to a gentlemanly debate on the topic of why the sea levels are (or were) rising–and last week, whether temperatures are rising in confirmation of the AGW hypothesis–and you have been running to ground ever since.

    And now you seem a bit, well, miffed. I’m sorry for that, mate, but it’s you who seem less than eager to carry even a blog-level burden of proof.

    The IPCC chapter you cite actually handles very little of relevance to the issue of whether AGW is the cause of recent sea level rises. It simply assumes (or implies) the cause of the warming of the oceans is anthropocentric, probably because the IPCC imagines it has proven the AGW hypothesis beyond a shadow of a doubt elsewhere.

    A shame, really, since sea levels are an excellent opportunity for yet another small test of the AGW hypothesis. And I so do enjoy testing hypotheses at every available opportunity, don’t you?

    Sadly, the IPCC plays to the beat of a different drum: No real evidence is given that AGW is the cause, nor is any effort made to test the AGW hypothesis against existing historical data on sea levels.

  36. wes george December 13, 2008 at 8:12 am #

    Please allow me state a single rather direct question to Eli Rabett clearly:

    Does Eli Rabett hold that in order to explain the recent rise in sea levels recourse to the AGW hypothesis is necessary?

  37. wes george December 13, 2008 at 12:04 pm #

    Oh, well, looks like Eli has taken his ball and stomped off back to his warren. Sad, really. Perhaps next time.

    Just for the record:

    Of the 38,000 words of the IPCC AR4 chapter 5 “Observations: Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level” only two sentences are dedicated to looking at sea levels before about 1900:

    “Global sea level rose by about 120 m during the several millennia that followed the end of the last ice age and stabilised between 3,000 and 2,000 years ago. Sea level indicators suggest that global sea level did not change significantly from then until the late 19th century.”

    The IPCC assessment focuses on the rise in sea levels of the past 50 years, then from this limited dataset forecasts scenario to 2100.

    For a hypothesis to be useful it must make predictions that can be tested. Of course, predictions for sea levels in the year 2100 are not useful in testing the functionality of the AGW hypothesis.

    The only way to test the AGW hypothesis is to look at the record of past sea levels. Instead the IPCC conveniently ignores the history of sea levels before about 1900.

    Fortunately, there are proxy records from all over that go back thousands of years and they show that the IPCC claim that sea levels haven’t “changed significantly” in the last 2,000 years to be a relative statement. Sea level fluctuations over the past 2,000 years are extremely significant if we wish to make any sense of the recent rises in sea level.

    In the context of the last 2,000 years the modern sea level rises lie within the normal range of change that occurred well before anthropocentric CO2 emissions could have been a factor.

    Since the modern rise of sea levels is well within the historic envelope of sea level fluctuations over the past 1,000 years (roughly .4m to .6m) then why is a special hypothesis required to explain only the most recent of rises of sea levels?

    Rising sea levels ARE evidence of the oceans warming, but that is all that can be rational deduced from the data. Especially since various studies show that the recent rise in sea levels began about 1800 AD some 120 years before AGW could be a factor effecting climate evolution.

    In fact, a CSIRO study suggests that sea levels today are no higher than they were 2,000 years ago, evidenced by Roman fish farming structures that were built at sea level. Combined with other US studies that show sea level in the past millennia have fluctuated by as much as 60cm and it appears rather than being at some unique “phase shift” moment in sea level history were are merely back to were we were 2,000 years ago!

    The IPCC assessment report ignores two thousand years of history to focus on the last 50 years to make its projections. Yet even when it claims that since 1993 sea level rises have accelerated to 3.3mm a year they admit this isn’t unusual, “similar rates have occurred in earlier decades.” In fact, it is likely that similar rates occurred as the climate moved into the MWP 1200 years ago, as well.

    To suggest that warming oceans (i.e. rising sea levels) that are well within historic norms require a special hypothesis as an explanation is unwarranted by the data and violates the fundamental scientific principle of parsimony in the process of hypothesis formation.

  38. Eli Rabett December 15, 2008 at 3:44 am #

    That goes in Chapter 6, the paleoclimate chapter

    Section 6.4.3 and please note, as with the other chapter AND REFERENCES THEREIN Here is a taste

    “Models of postglacial RSL history together with Holocene
    observations can be employed to assess whether or not a
    signifi cant fraction of the observed globally averaged rate of
    sea level rise of about 2 mm yr–1 during the 20th century can
    be explained as a long term continuing infl uence of the most
    recent partial deglaciation of the polar ice sheets. Based upon
    post-TAR estimates derived from geological observations of
    Holocene sea level from 16 equatorial Pacifi c islands (Peltier,
    2002; Peltier et al., 2002), it appears likely that the average
    rate of sea level rise due to this hypothetical source over the
    last 2 kyr was zero and at most in the range 0 to 0.2 mm yr–1
    (Lambeck, 2002).”

    Stop trying to make your ignrance our problem

  39. WJP December 15, 2008 at 1:09 pm #

    “ignrance” now that’s weally wascally!

  40. Eli Rabett December 15, 2008 at 1:42 pm #

    That way you can’t be accused of calling someone ignorant. Weally

  41. Graeme Bird December 17, 2008 at 9:39 am #

    Its the beginning of the end. Its the very last metric to fall. It could be the best measure of imbedded energy that we have. Given that it takes in water expansion and melted ice together.

    Once that falls the trend must continue. Since with less warmth and expansion there will be less viscosity. The oceans will circulate with less ease and therefore via stefans-boltzmanns law the ocean will not be able to retain the same heat.

    Its the last domino to drop before the cooling phase is locked in surely. And no powerful solar activity on the horizon to pull the oceans out of their coming torpor.

    I say this with little glee because it will be a tough time for the whole of human society and we won’t likely be back under warmer conditions until clear past mid-century. But it at least will give us a bit of an advantage when it comes to bashing this leftist fraud.

    “there’s no way you can associate sea level rise with AGW. It doesn’t even rise and fall with the temp chart.”

    Don’t be foolish jamama. This is not some lefty homo orgy. This is nature. And you don’t expect all metrics to come together in some cosmic orgasm do you? This is what we get all the time. Oh this cannot be they say. How can the water be getting cooler if the far north is melting still they say. Denialist, delusionist they say. But the fact is in any complex system all these indicative results aren’t going to be simultaneous. You don’t expect the gulf stream strength to peak exactly with solar activity and that to peak with solar wind strength and that to peak with sea level and that all the peak with air temperature peak and that all to peak with CO2 levels and that all to peak with imbedded energy in the oceans.

    My goodness. Like its all got to be a cosmic orgasm in your world does it?

    I’ve never heard anything so foolish in all my life.

  42. Graeme Bird December 17, 2008 at 9:52 am #

    “Jen – the upward trend has NOT stumbled – the last two data points are actually above the trend line. Looks like it’s actually INCREASING again. AGW is baaaacckkkk !”


    Luke have you got some learning difficulty or something? Because I don’t want to be calling you a liar, out of respect for Sarah Palin, if you are suffering from Downs Syndrome, or something of that nature.

    When, ie what date, is the sun closest to the Earth? I don’t know the answer to that. But its in the way of things that the sea level ought to peak 2 or 3 months after that in the same way that the hottest time of the day is 2 or 3 in the afternoon and not noon itself.

    Do you not know a yearly cycle when you see one Luke? The earth gets closer to the sun and so it gets warmer. The earth moves further away from the sun and so it get cooler. Tell me if the words I’m using are too difficult and long.

  43. Graeme Bird December 17, 2008 at 9:57 am #

    “It is a misconception that Earth is closer to the Sun in the northern-hemisphere summer (June or July) In fact, the date that Earth is closest to the sun is the 4th January…”

    Right. So I’m saying the sea level ought to typically peak two or three months after that. If I’m wrong that’s good, since it will throw a lot of light on the subject, and be a tip-off to how things actually work.

  44. Graeme Bird December 17, 2008 at 10:37 am #

    So far I’ve had a bit of a look and it appears that the highest point might tend to be at exactly the opposite end of the year to what I said. Well thats just magnificent. What could it mean? People ought to be chasing up clues like that. Its as though the sea is conserving its energy by getting into a cycle where it will hit its greatest expansion at its coolest time. Heat energy affecting expansion might not be an instantaneous thing or it could be something more mundane like Northern hemisphere melting and freezing. But one would certainly wish to uncover what the reason for the particular timing of the cycle is. Rather than spending ones time as a CO2-Bedwetting propagandist.

  45. Graeme Bird December 18, 2008 at 2:07 pm #

    No it must be Northern melting and global expansion working at cross purposes to each-other. And the Northern melting and freezing tending to win out. The data looks to have a yearly rhythm but still its all over the place.

  46. Eli Rabett December 18, 2008 at 3:44 pm #

    WMO confirms “Overall [Arctic] ice volume was less than that in any other year”


    Report from AGU meeting: One meter sea level rise by 2100 “very likely” even if warming stops?


    We now resume our regularly scheduled denialism

Website by 46digital