Well, I’m halfway through another part of my sea-level study and I thought I’d update you all with my progress.  First, some background…… as we saw earlier,   the data which met my first criteria didn’t tell us much.  So, I’m drudging through the data once again, only this time I’m using the same criteria, but catching the data sets that ended in 2009.  So far, the total data set still shows an increase in sea-level, but that’s before dividing the data by their coastal regions.  Fortunately, PSMSL has already divided the data by a Coastal code.  Very nice.  Now, as I stated, I’m only half way through this particular part.  So we should not try to attach much meaning to all of this.  This is just an update……. or a tease if you will.  Now, recall the map of the data points that met my criteria.  Well, you don’t have to recall, I’ll just show it to you…….. 🙂


So, Coast Code 40, (that’s PSMSL code for Norway coastal area) Had at least(remember, only 1/2 done) 7 reporting stations that mysteriously quit reporting in 2009.  Here is the location with some data in some balloons.  (Name, GPS, 1981 sea level and 2009 sea level)


Ok, so the balloon idea didn’t work like I wanted them to.  But, here’s a graph of the Coastal Code’s trend.


But, that’s only CC(Coast Code) 40!!  I’m glad you brought that up!

Here is CC 50 with data ending in 2009.  (Balloons worked better!!)



CC 822………  (arhhgg the balloons again!)



Well, there are more examples, and other examples of stations using the same criteria that show an increase in sea level.  For the U.S. and Canada, one could almost see the reasoning to stop using some stations, after all, how many do you need?  But, what of our Scandinavian friends?  There were over a dozen sites with good data and continuity, but now they’ve only 2 or 3?  It doesn’t make much sense.  Anyway, that’s my tease for the day.  Questions, comments, and concerns are welcomed.



This entry was posted in Sea Level. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to A TEASE

  1. Latitude says:

    ok, we all know that it’s impossible for some stations to trend down….while other stations trend up
    Water doesn’t work that way………….land does

    • suyts says:

      So far, I’ve two coast codes with an overall downward trend. But, yeh, its interesting about the northwest coast, there was another by San Jose that had a downward trend that just quit having data after 2009.

      • Latitude says:

        ok…there’s a difference between quit having data….and data not available
        I don’t think they were smart enough to turn them off in 2009, I think someone turned them off much later and fixed it so they just don’t show data after 2009.
        Right now, that’s what I’d like to find out….

        This is why…..


      • suyts says:

        Yes, you’re 100% right…… I meant to mention that in the post….. thanks!

        What you and I know, others may not. So, for the people that don’t know,…………

        They don’t stop tracking the sea level. If there’s a harbor, a boat, or anything nautical, they track the sea levels. Where that information is? IDK, perhaps the harbor master. I truly hope it doesn’t come down to running down that information.

        But yeh, Sweden, Norway, and Canada. These aren’t 3rd world nations that just quit tracking. They didn’t.

        Also, I’m only going through the yearly data right now. The monthly data may give us better insights, but I don’t want to look at it right now because it may change the perspective of what I’m doing right now, and I don’t want it to be biased.

  2. Mark Reau says:

    A color code on the first map would be helpful. I like the graphs, if you figure a way to manipulate the bubbles…they do seem to reinforce the graph. I think Latitude is correct again. Grumpy Grampy mentioned on earlier post that these rises were remnants, remnants of what? That’s driving me nuts.

    • suyts says:

      Mark, the different colors on the first map were used only to distinguish areas and quantity of the different locations that met my original criteria for determining sea level rise or fall. Obviously, that wasn’t sufficient to determine sea level rise or fall. All it told us was that on 3 coasts sea level may have risen. That’s why I’m continuing. I’m hopeful that once I get the information in a coherent form, it will be able to tell us whether or not our sea level gauges show a sea level rise or not.

      Our satellites, we were told, were in part calibrated on the information our gauges showed. Given the incompleteness of the data, I’m having a hard time buying into it. But, I’m going through it to see if the data did and does indeed show it, in the most thorough manner I can. The disappearing stations are just too much for me to walk away from. 🙂

      As to Mike’s (Grumpy Grampy) statement, you’ll have to be more specific. Go ahead and quote him and if its obvious to me what he’s saying, I’ll let you know…….. if not, he’ll be by at some point………

      • Mike Davis says:

        Remnants of sloppy research. They wanted to find specific results and by magic the results were worse than expected.

      • Mike Davis says:

        Sometimes it is not obvious to me what I am saying!
        I was trained to analyze and ramble while doing it. On especially tough issues a few of us would toss around thoughts and proceed until the issue was resolved.

  3. Latitude says:

    Our satellites, we were told, were in part calibrated on the information our gauges showed
    Nope, remember Evisats 2008 report.
    When Envisat was launched, it’s first 22 passes showed sea levels falling. They didn’t believe it. So they tuned Envisat to match what Jason said which was sea level rise. Even though the whole reason for launching Envisat in the first place was because Jason was failing or so they thought, because Jason was showing sea levels falling.
    Backing up from that…..Jason was tuned to match what the computer models said sea levels should be doing…..
    Anywho, After re-tuning Envisat, it still started showing sea levels falling again…didn’t believe it again…so that was when they tuned Envisat using the computer models…..

    Even with all of those upward adjustments and tuning, Envisat started showing sea levels falling again. That time they wrote it off as “unexplained”….Envisat is still showing sea levels falling, They are manually adjusting it up, calling it “correcting” in their reports.

    …notice, at no time have they said they are adjusting anything to actual measured gauges….
    ….it’s all measurements from Jason, etc and what the computer models tell them it’s supposed to be

    I have a bone to pick with Roy when you get more of this together………………

    • suyts says:


      Any way, yes, Envisat was calibrated to Jason………. I should have been more clear and you are entirely correct.

      I was going back to Jason I and Topex/Poseidon. I’ll see if I can’t find the documentation, but I thought I shared that with you. Because T/P was supposedly consistent with our gauges, they believe the sat data is valid……… well, that and the data fits with their models…..until recently.

      I think they were more consistent with their models than they were the gauges, but that’s the endeavor. And, I think our gauges were telling a different story while they were celebrating the increased accuracy.

      In my mind, there are two questions. What do the gauges show us today, and what did the gauges show them then. I’m doing the 30 years now to include what would have been reasonable to infer with both then and now and see if they bothered to check back. Once I’m done with the 30 years, I’ll break it down to 20, 15, and the last 10. ……. if I can, given the data and the corruption of the data…..the last 10 is going to be difficult using the straight forward method that we’re using.

    • Mark Reau says:

      Last post seems lost, anyway, thanks Latitude that cleared things up.

  4. Mark Reau says:

    Thanks Latitude, clarified things nicely. I can’t find Mike’s statement to save my life. ?. Surface temps. data (WUWT), Sea surface temps. data (SUYTS) , not a real pretty picture. Honestly, I think Eisenhower summed this up in his infrequently quoted Military industrialist speech. speech.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY
    Government applied science fits in this context as well, I think.
    Thanks, Mark

    • suyts says:

      Ike was spot on. And no, it isn’t pretty.

    • Mike Davis says:

      Sea level is only meaningful when related to a specific coastal point. The entire surface of the globe is floating and is made up of many pieces that are dancing to their own drummer, so to speak. While some are doing a bump and grind others are ding a slow dance, sorta going with the flow, for now. It is all about gravitational and magnetic influences and nothing in nature is static.
      Science became a make work growth industry after the war and became a haven for scam artists. Of course you can say the same regarding medicine, finance, construction and many other occupations. I left out LAW but that has always been a haven, and I have relations who are in the legal field.
      In reality sea level could be rising or it could be falling. Over the long term it does not matter just as weather will do what it will and we will adapt in our own feeble way. There are many sites that should have been abandoned to return to a natural state but we are overly sentimental.

      • Latitude says:

        Mike, when science took a wrong turn….was when they allowed that very last paragraph
        That is where conclusions are reached, and the science in the paper does not support it.

      • Mike Davis says:

        The majority of the conclusions that I read are that the problem is solved but we need to do further research! It seems the research papers are more grant proposals competing for funding rather than introducing anything that adds to knowledge!
        Even the Circus stunt “Row to the Pole” was probably attempting to secure additional funding for some Wild A$$ scheme!Take out “Row to the pole” and insert whatever and the description seems to fit.
        Hockey Stick
        Hansen before Congress
        IPCC Confabs
        IPCC reports
        NASA GISS

  5. Latitude says:

    One more thing we forget to mention…
    …I’m going to put it here so we don’t forget

    Envisat was launched to replace Jason because Jason 2 was failing….

    If a satellite fails in low orbit, it’s because it can’t maintain it’s orbit…it gets closer to the earth.

    If it gets closer, it’s not going to fail by showing sea levels falling, which is what they are doing

    Remember these are really not cutting edge science, they are basically Hummingbird fish finders

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s