Today Anthony Watts puts up a chart of what he says is the rate of change of global sea level using a ten-year running mean of the sea level change each decade. Problem is not only that he forgot some of the data, he forgot that like him, lots of his readers are chart illiterate and confuse rate of change with total actual change. Or did he. Is it any more likely he was counting on that? Anthony's not very bright when it comes to charts.
This is the actual sea level change from the University of Colorado (click any chart to enlarge it):
This is the chart Anthony posted - what he calls the Decadal (overlapping) rates for sea level rise as determined from the satellite sea level rise observations, 1993-2011. Obviously smoothed by some means or other, though Anthony doesn't say so.
This is the chart I plotted based on these data - with and without Anthony's missing data points and no smoothing. Remember this is just the amount of the increase in sea level from each preceding 10-year period stepping one year at a time. A ten year moving average of the rate of change not the total change over the period from 1993 to 2013:
Not just hiding the data but also hiding the incline..
But wait, doesn't the moving average tend to hide the most recent incline? This is the chart I plotted showing the actual sea level rise, with an eleven year moving average:
Here is more exposure of Anthony's latest trick. It's the same data plotted as an annual rise from 1993 to 2012 as well as the change in sea level from one year to the next. Note the huge jump in sea level in 2012 after the slight drop in 2011. Seas dropped noticeably in 2011 because of all the rain that fell in the "unprecedented" (deniers hate that word) global flooding in places like Australia, Brazil and elsewhere. It didn't take long to more than recover, did it:
Anthony doesn't find it funny
Anthony doesn't tag his article "humour", he tags it "politics, sea level". My guess is he doesn't understand it and didn't know it was "meant to be funny". But he does give a hat tip to Pat Michaels. Buried in the comments is this little post, after a few readers pointed out problems. Michaels decides he'd better spell out in black and white to Anthony and his readers that it's "just a joke", appropriately substituting a term that he thinks the WUWT infants would be more comfortable with - "funsies":
Pat Michaels says:
May 28, 2013 at 5:49 pm May I humbly point out that I posted this for funsies? If we lose our sense of humor, we become like Mikey Mann.
Pat Michaels and his Dismissives are a joke!
Let's do what Pat Michaels suggests and laugh at Michaels and who he chooses as his crowd. They surely are a joke. Anthony Watts and his WUWT Dismissives who can't read a chart, don't check the data, who just look at the pictures and bash their keyboard.
Steven says scientists who actually measure this stuff are deluded in an 'all the world is mad' comment:
May 28, 2013 at 4:31 pm Latitude: The bottoms of the oceans are sinking and the land is rising. All at the same time. Imagine that ! People who think there will ever be a significant rise in oceans levels are seriously deluded.
James Padgett doesn't check the facts. Nor does he realise that Anthony plotted a (distorted and incomplete) rate of change, not the total change when he says:
May 28, 2013 at 3:34 pm Trenberth’s missing heat doesn’t seem to be doing much in the way of thermal expansion.
While FerdinandAkin thinks every rise in sea level brings us one step closer to the imaginary imminent ice age that's going to hit any day now, when he says:
May 28, 2013 at 2:52 pm Does not the geological record tell us that sea level peaks out just before the start of next glaciation period?
Update: It looks as if another professional disinformer, Marc Morano fell for it hook, line and sinker, as did the potty peer Monckton. Just like Watts, neither of them suggest it's a 'funsie'. Goes to show innumeracy is a common characteristic of the anti-science propagandists. Not a surprise.
Update2: Several hours later Anthony belatedly added a "humour" tag to his post. He must have read Pat Michael's comment - or maybe he visited HotWhopper. I had to go back to a cached version to check the original. Here are the two versions (animated):