Understanding Swimming Pools

If you pour water into one end of a swimming pool, it raises the water across the entire pool. Water always seeks a level surface.


The same thing is true with the oceans. If glacial melt was accelerating, then we see acceleration in sea level rise rates at every tide gauge on the planet. All of the oceans are interconnected.

If glacial melt was accelerating, we would see an upwards curvature in tide gauge data, like this.

ScreenHunter_7972 Mar. 17 06.02

But we don’t. Tide gauges show no acceleration.

ScreenHunter_7973 Mar. 17 06.03

Tide gauges on the East Coast show no upwards curvature (acceleration)

ScreenHunter_7971 Mar. 17 05.58

Tide gauges in Northern Europe show no acceleration. Sea level is falling there

ScreenHunter_7970 Mar. 17 05.58

Tide gauges on the west coast show no change in sea level at all

ScreenHunter_7969 Mar. 17 05.57

People who claim that glacial melt is accelerating, are lying. If it was happening, upwards curvature would be visible at every tide gauge on the planet. We don’t see that.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

54 Responses to Understanding Swimming Pools

  1. sabretoothed says:

    Lakes should rise too, more free water

  2. Steve Case says:

    AND if you analyse the satellite data since 1992 you will find that the rate of sea level rise has decreased ever so slightly over the last 22 years.

    Works out to a negative acceleration of minus -0.05 mm/yr²

    • rah says:

      Though I appreciate the information, I just don’t buy that satellite or even the older tide gauge measurements are accurate enough to measure a change of 100ths of a mm. Now I understand your talking a trend over a period of 22 years in in your post and that of course is a horse of a different color and would indicate a drop of 1.1 mm during that period and that is certainly worth paying attention to. Just saying that when ever anyone starts talking of al change in even a few 10ths of mm in a year as being a significant indicator, I disregard it.

      • Steve Case says:

        Thanks for the comment. Colorado is the keeper of satellite data and the story is really a bit more than just a drop from 3.5 mm/yr to 2.9 mm/yr read on:

        If you go to the Internet Archive’s WayBack Machine:
        and plug in the URL for Colorado Universty’s Sea Level Research Group
        You will find records that go back to 2004. The earliest functional “mean sea level time series” link is from March 27th of that year, and if you follow that link through to “Inverted Barometer Applied” and “Seasonal Signals Removed” and click on text
        you will find the data as it existed for 1992.928 thru 2003.842 It’s then rather simple to download the series into Excel and find the slope. It comes out to be 2.6 mm/yr

        If you then go to Colorado University’s Sea Level Research Unit today and dowload the “Raw data (ASCII)”
        You will find that the same series for 1992.96 through 2003.846 comes out to be 3.5 mm/yr. Somehow over the last ten years the data has been changed. What had been 2.6 mm/yr in 2003 is now 3.5 mm/yr. An increase of 0.9 mm/yr.
        Looks like this:

        If you ask Colorado University about these changes they say:

        “The sea level time series release from 2004 is over eight years old, and in that time many parts of the TOPEX and Jason-1 processing have been updated to reflect instrument and ancillary data improvements. Without recreating each processing change over the last eight years, We cannot point to any specific update that is the main cause of the differences between the 2004 and the current release. But a partial list of the more influential updates include:
        – updated orbits
        – updated radiometer corrections
        – updated tide models
        – updated sea state bias models
        – updated dynamic atmosphere

        “A review of the release notes shows how we continually apply what the altimeter science community considers to be the most up-to-date set of processing parameters.”

  3. Matt says:


    yet another (simple) example of why this AGW-fraud is (bad) joke. Most people on the planet will understand that swimming pool story. It saddens me quite a bit to see that California – a hotspot of AGW-supporters – is not suffering at all…

    Keep up the great work!

  4. richard says:

    before the men in black from government polluted science they knew the reasons for sea level rise.

    “Local effects make the tide gauge data difficult to interpret

    It is important to remember that tide gauges are primarily a navigation aid. As such, many of these tide gauges are located near ports and other growing population centers. In turn, it is possible that these sites are subject to local land subsidence caused by ground water extraction;

    For the last century, the global level of the sea appears to have risen at an average rate of nearly two mm/yr. However, in any given region, the apparent rate of rise can vary considerably from the long term global value. Geographical and temporal variations from the long-term mean value occur from a variety of causes such as interdecadal fluctuations of ocean density and circulation, continuing isostatic adjustment of the land level from the last deglaciation, subsidence due to the extraction of underground fluids, and others”

    The interval 1930-1990 is long enough at 60 years to establish that the middle Atlantic region has a systematically higher rate of sea level rise than the long term global average of nearly 2 mm per year. The approximately 1.5 mm/yr extra rise for the region comes from a general sinking of the area into the ocean. Postglacial rebound, that is, readjustment (sinking in this area) of land elevations since the retreat of the glaciers at the end of the last ice age, is the cause.

    Examining the Table more closely, we see that several sites (Portsmouth, Solomons Island) still do show substantial positive values of sea level rise for the last 20 years. It is possible that these sites are subject to land subsidence beyond the regional value caused by postglacial rebound. A typical cause of such localized subsidence is groundwater extraction, which in fact has occurred in both areas at an ever increasing rate in recent decades”

    and on and on……


  5. Here in Stockholm the sea level is not falling rather the land is raising. Reasoning behind it is said to be the isages that pulled “down” the land and after melting the ice the land is still recovering (rizing with som mm/year). It´s seen both at sea and oround lakes etc.

  6. Tony, totally off subject, but seeing your tweet about Saint Patrick’s day, I’ve written an article almost just for you on Saint Patrick outlining the clear evidence linking his birth to Old Kilpatrick near Glasgow Scotland. However, the reason I think you will particularly like it, is because we see almost the same kinds of “consensus” thinking in history as we see in Science.

    The clear evidence in the old texts stating his birth was near Glasgow, was rejected. Why? It appears like Global Warming that is was blatant political manipulation. And scholars both ancient & modern appear happy to go along with this. This system is clearly corrupt!

    Confirmation St. Patrick was born near Glasgow

    • Interesting.

      We do know for sure that Sir Alex was born near Glasgow. Because I can’t understand anything he says.

      • I love it when they subtitle Scots or northerners for US television.

        Did you understand anything at all in the song “Up and run awa”. It was written to commemorate the defeat of government forces by a smaller and less well equipped Jacobite force who just outsmarted them. Whenever I see Al Gore’s name I start singing it!

        • WEE, sleekit, cow’rin, tim’rous beastie,
          O, what a panic’s in thy breastie!
          Thou need na start awa sae hasty,
          Wi’ bickering brattle!
          I wad be laith to rin an’ chase thee,
          Wi’ murd’ring pattle!

          I’m truly sorry man’s dominion,
          Has broken nature’s social union,
          An’ justifies that ill opinion,
          Which makes thee startle
          At me, thy poor, earth-born companion,
          An’ fellow-mortal!

        • That’s really good!
          “WEE, sleekit, cow’rin, tim’rous beastie,
          O, what a panic’s in thy breastie!”

          Fits Al Gore and alarmist exactly

        • I was celebrating Robbie Burns night at a pub in Cambridge February 2003, the night the “thing of the past” returned to southern England.

          The M11 turned into a giant parking lot because the govt had quit buying grit on advice of the Met Ofiice.

  7. At the time of St.Patrick the Water around Scotland was around 2-3m higher. You can tell this because the Roman Antonine Wall cannot be found on the present flat raised ground next to the Forth. In other words, the wall must have finished where it came down the hill and the flat ground was underwater in the Roman period. No one disputes this, nor do they dispute that the south of Briton has been sinking since the Roman period (more than Scotland is rising!). So, it is well known that sea level has been changing and the many raised beeches in Scotland are clear testimony to this fact.

    So, only the daft or the fraudulent would look at a graph showing steady change in sea level and say anything other than it is changing as it has been changing very slowly since the last ice-age.

  8. Adam Gallon says:

    Stockholm’s probably a classic case of glacial isostatic rebound. http://cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wikispeedia/wpcd/wp/p/Post-glacial_rebound.htm
    “In Sweden, Lake Mälaren was formerly an arm of the Baltic Sea, but uplift eventually cut it off and led to it becoming a freshwater lake in about the 12th century, at the time then Stockholm was founded at its outlet. Marine seashells found in Lake Ontario sediments imply a similar event in prehistoric times. In several Nordic ports, like Tornio, the harbour had to be relocated several times in the past centuries.”

  9. QV says:

    When the 10 year rolling trend is calculated for the New York data, there is a fairly regular pattern of peaks and troughs every 15 years or so. So the trend is not as constant as it first appears.
    The rolling 10 year trend is currently about 8mm/year, but as recently as 2011 it was 15mm/year and in 2005 it was -5mm/yr. It was also 15mm/year in the 1880’s.
    The 30 year rolling trend also shows a cyclical pattern. It is currently about 4.7mm/year but in the 1980’s it was around 1.7mm/year. It was also around the present level in the 1950’s and the 1890’s.
    Does anyone know the cause of this apparent speeding up, and slowing down, of sea level rise on an apparently regular basis? Is it astronomical?

    • Steve Case says:

      Don ‘t know the cause, but it’s handy to point out that the 30 year rate was higher in the year ending in 1953 than the 30 rate ending in 2013.

      • QV says:

        I guess that means you have replicated my figures?
        My original ones were using monthly data and when I did them again with annual data the trends were slightly different but the basic premise hold true.

  10. Edmonton Al says:

    Thanks for that Tony.
    I will be forwarding this to the Canadian Minister if the Environment, along with a request that she pass the info along to her department heads.

  11. scott allen says:

    I have no back ground in hydrology nor geology so may be someone could answer me two questions.

    1. The visible land is growing by about 27 cubic kilometers a year, and given that the oceans make up 75% of the earth, wouldn’t it be safe to say the the earth is adding 81 cubic kilometers of land that we can not see, Would this not account for a slight rise in sea level, (I mean they are talking about a 1 mm rise in sea level a year)?

    2. Those who go by the tidal gauges do not take into account the variations in water that is in transition, through evaporation, locked in snow, rivers and dams. They would have to assume that non ocean water is constant all over the earth and balances it self out, which is untrue.

    I don’t believe that any super computer can handle all the variables that go into the make up of our planet.

  12. gator69 says:

    OT – I wonder if it was a tribute to the kiddie pool when they called it ‘El Nino’?

  13. dikstr says:

    Glad to see this information concisely presented. The environmental extremists are raving about the glacial melt continuously – good to see the actual facts.

    I have only one suggestion relative to your statement:

    “If glacial melt was accelerating, we would see an upwards curvature in tide gauge data, like this.”

    Since the upwards curvature is nonexistent, it should read:

    “If glacial melt were accelerating, we would see an upwards curvature in tide gauge data, like this.”

    Alas, the subjunctive case is too often ignored in the English language.

    • Steve Case says:

      Tide gauges have to contend with tectonic movements, and well, tides. One would think that the satellite data would be superior and show the results of all the “melting” but it seems to be under the control of the borg and suffers from the same upjusting bias that the temperature record endures.

      But that aside all the news items that quote “experts” who say a meter of sea level rise by 2100 are just plain nuts.

    • Donna K. Becker says:

      Right on!

  14. ChadP says:

    I agree with your swimming pool analogy. However, ignorant question here: You showed sea levels going up and down around the world. Why aren’t they all going up or down (linearly)? Sorry if the was answered before….

  15. Gail Combs says:

    There is also the wind. Specifically the trade winds and they are NOT constant.

    FROM: https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/02/22/el-nino-and-la-nina-basics-introduction-to-the-pacific-trade-winds/

    With all of that warm water being piled up in the western tropical Pacific, and with all of the cool water being drawn from the eastern equatorial Pacific, the surface of the water—the sea level—in the west Pacific Warm Pool is about 0.5 meters (approximately 1.5 feet) higher in elevation than it is in Cold Tongue Region in the east.

    So the trade winds effect the water level in the Pacific.

    Quick Comments on England et al. (2014)
    Posted on February 10, 2014 by Bob Tisdale

    England et al. (2014) paper Recent intensification of wind-driven circulation in the Pacific and the ongoing warming hiatus has been getting a lot of press around the blogosphere. The HockeySchtick has an excellent overview here, Anthony Watts introduced the paper in his WattsUpWithThat post here, Jo Nova has a guest post by William Kininmonth here, and Dana Nuccitelli added the warmist spin on the paper for SkepticalScience here. The following are a few quick comments about England et al. (2014)…..

    ….Much of England et al. (2014) was devoted to climate models and how the models did not properly simulate the recent stronger trade winds experienced in tropical Pacific—stronger trade winds that were due to the dominance of La Niñas…..

    So some time Ye Ole Swiming pool has a strong wind blowing the water towards one end.

    • Donna K. Becker says:

      “trade winds ‘affect’… (verb)

      The “effects” of trade winds (noun)

      Again, just trying to help and clarify. Words do have specific meanings, as I’m sure you’re aware. I’ve found that, for me, errors in syntax, grammar, spelling, punctuation, etc. detract from meaning and distract me from the thread of the communication. They stop my train of thought dead in its (not “it’s”) track.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Thanks Donna,
        John Dewey and the Progressives used my school for ‘experiments’ I never learned phonetics or grammar.

      • gator69 says:

        Hey Donna! My mother gave me a copy of this book because she knows how I feel about the abuse and misuse of one of the world’s greatest and most descriptive languages (best in my opinion). You have probably read it, but if not, do yourself a favor, and enjoy!


        • Donna K. Becker says:


          Although I haven’t yet read this one, I’ve had lunch with Michael Strumpf, author of The Grammar Bible, a couple of times. Even so, I could benefit from reviewing the rules again.

          I merely wish there were a way to re-educate people without offending them.

        • Donna K. Becker says:


          Are you a Gulcher? Did you know that a mini-series is in the works?

        • gator69 says:

          I am familiar with the name but admittedly not the work, so do keep me informed.

          One of my all time favorite documentary series ever was Melvyn Bragg’s “The Adventure of English”. If memory serves it ran on the History Channel. It was utterly fantastic. I burned three copies, one for me, one for my father, and an extra. I also found a commercial DVD after much searching, but it was in a different format from US DVD’s,, and I went as far as to buy a universal DVD player so I could watch and share a better copy. If you have not seen this series, you must!


          A 1,500 year journey with Melvyn Bragg and a team of experts uncovers the fascinating tale of a remarkable language. While they share the secrets of how English has evolved and impacted society in this 8-part documentary, the rain in Spain stays mainly on the plain.” Includes 8 episodes on 4 DVDs. 2002-03/color/6 hrs., 48 min/NR/widescreen.

          I watched it three times, and got more out of it with each viewing.

  16. Rob Ryan says:

    So “it raises the water across the entire pool. Water always seeks a level surface.” And Tide gauges on the East Coast show no upwards curvature (acceleration).” But “Tide gauges in Northern Europe show no acceleration. Sea level is falling there.” And then “Tide gauges on the west coast show no change in sea level at all.” And then “All of the oceans are interconnected.”

    So tell me again how your swimming pool works?

  17. sfx2020 says:

    “The same thing is true with the oceans.”

    No, it is certainly not.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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