Sea levels are falling, current rate 10mm per year.

Since the start of the hottest year ever, sea level has fallen 10 mm.The most recent data from The University Of Colorado is shown below. And so the last of the alamist fortresses falls.Thanks to Steven Goddard who published an excellent article on this subject at his new blog “Real Science” here.

This entry was posted in World. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Sea levels are falling, current rate 10mm per year.

  1. R. de Haan says:

    Gore chased by Climate Skeptics wherever he goes:
    You’re a fraud. Global Warming is a hoax.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGe3yUtyJww

  2. Mike Jonas says:

    And so the last of the alarmist fortresses falls.“.

    It may be what we all wish for, but re this graph I’m afraid it is wishful thinking. The Colorado sea-level graph
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/ensosea-levelsea-surface-temperature-page/
    which is linked to from WUWT’s sea-level page
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/ensosea-levelsea-surface-temperature-page/
    clearly shows (unless I have to replace my specs yet again) that such a sharp one-year drop is not all that unusual within the rising trend.

    I do happen to be expecting the sea level to start falling, and this may be the start of it, but more evidence is needed.

    • Mike,

      I am not trying to make the case that sea level is falling long term.

      I’m simply pointing out that the claims of record warming and melt in 2010 “don’t hold water.”

  3. R. de Haan says:

    Mike Jones,

    I am familiar with the sea level fluctuations and you only have to take a look at the graph to see they are real.
    The warmist propaganda however is pushing the sea level scare with terms like “unprecedented sea level rise” up to 6 meters by 2050, echoed by the almost daily drum of the MSM. A totally different story with enormous consequences.

    Governments like for example the Dutch Government have allocated huge budgets (50 billion Euro)for coastal defenses based on this information.

    Just to find out that sea level is stagnant or even decreasing means nothing more but a huge break of the alarmist spell.

    Of course I agree we will need more data but I have no doubt that this is a big breakthrough, another eye opener so to say.

    I hope you can agree with this view.

  4. John F. Hultquist says:

    R. de Haan says: at 9:12 pm
    . . .the Dutch Government have allocated huge budgets (50 billion Euro)for coastal defenses based on this information.

    While the Netherlands’ press, politicians, and others may use the AGW line in support of their water projects, their history and topography give them many good reasons to prepare. The odd storm is to be more feared than the slow rise of the sea. For example, note the list of storms under the heading of “Notorious floods” here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_control_in_the_Netherlands

    The 1953 storm is explained here:

    http://www.deltawerken.com/89

  5. Mike Jonas says:

    R. de Haan – I am as desperate as just about anyone for the AGW myth to be destroyed before it does too much damage to our economies and to science itself. That it has got this far in the absence of proper scientific evidence and in the absence of any kind of testing (other than tests that are ignored because they failed), is an absolute disgrace.

    I also expect sea levels to stop rising at any time, because the PDO turned down a few years ago, and global temperatures and sea levels should follow, but of course there may be other factors that I am not aware of.

    Maybe this sea level downturn really is the start of a new phase. It’s just that calling a major change on the basis of one year’s data, in the absence of sufficient supporting data, is not IMHO justified.

  6. R. de Haan says:

    John F. Hultquist says:
    October 1, 2010 at 10:17 pm

    “While the Netherlands’ press, politicians, and others may use the AGW line in support of their water projects, their history and topography give them many good reasons to prepare.”

    John, I know about the history.
    The fact remains that counties should secure their coast lines based on real expectations instead of propaganda.

  7. Ken Hall says:

    So IF 2010 was the warmest year on record and IF this has meant that ice loss has been greater than normal, then where has all this extra melted water actually gone to?

  8. R. de Haan says:

    1. Oceans are cooling = reduction of thermal expansion.
    2. Global ice extent has shown record levels
    3. It hasn’t been the hottest year ever. Yes we had some severe hot spots this year because f the blocking but also some severe cold and wet spots.
    The hot and wet spots have been in the news, the cold spots… only mentioned by the Skeptical Blog Sphere.

  9. seree says:

    Ron – ok, dummy-Seree time again: I dont understand point 2 above, but seem to understand it has to do directly with sea level staying same or dropping. Can you explain a teensy bit more in step-by-step form? This is all so tremendously fascinating.

    • seree says:

      Oh hang on. I remember Alan saying shortly before he died that despite natural snowmelt there is also greater precipitation of snow/ice in various alps etc which means that the total result is increased snow/ice rather than decreased, which explains where the evaporated sea water has gone. Is that right? If so, where has there been greater increase than loss of snow/ice?

  10. R. de Haan says:

    Seree, there is nothing to understand about point 2.
    It’s a simple fact.
    When you add up the Arctic Sea Ice extent (which just surpassed 2005 levels at the second fast growing rate since we started to measure it see: http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/10/03/arctic-ice-extent-now-above-2005-levels/ and you add the Antarctic Sea Ice extent we are at record levels.

  11. seree says:

    ok Ron. Soetimes I’d begin a question to Alan with ‘pleast dont pull yr hair out’ but he answered ‘got none’, so, Ron, please dont pull your hair out but please look at this
    http://climateprogress.org/2010/05/21/arctic-sea-ice-area-extent-volume-record-low/
    Is it possible to go from record low since 2005, according to this posting of May 2010, to record high since 2007….. Grrrr, there are 2 very different and therefore confusing points of comparison here. I looked up the term ‘ice extent’ which includes water between ice floes and is measured in square km; but shouldnt any ‘record’ also include depth of the ice?

    curiously,
    s/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>