NASA satellite no longer measuring sea levels – Why? Because they’re falling?

Jason-1, a satellite that for more than a decade precisely tracked rising sea levels across a vast sweep of ocean has ended its useful life after circling the globe more than 53,500 times, NASA announced Wednesday.

Since its launch, Jason-1 recorded a rise of nearly 1.6 inches in global sea levels that are “a critical measure of climate change and a direct result of global warming,” said John Grunsfeld, associate administrator of NASA’s Science Mission Directorate in Washington.

I question that statement.

According to the European Space Agency satellite Envisat*, sea levels declined in both 2010 and 2011.
See: Sea Level Continues Inexorable Decline
See also: Sea levels dropped in 2010

Who is telling the truth here? Unfortunately, I don’t trust NASA’s interpretation of the numbers.

Also, Jason-1 discovered many previously unknown underwater volcanoes

“A 406-day scan completed on June 17 led to the discovery of many underwater seamounts,” researchers said.

Seamounts are “extinct” underwater volcanoes. There are an estimated 100,000 seamounts across the globe, with only a few having been studied, says Wikipedia.

Complete article about Jason-1:

Thanks to Bob Knows for this link


* What is Envisat?

Envisat (Photo Credit - ESA)

According to the European Space Agency (ESA) website, Envisat is the largest Earth Observation spacecraft ever built. Launched in 2002, it carries ten sophisticated optical and radar instruments to provide continuous observation and monitoring of the Earth’s land, atmosphere, oceans and ice caps. Envisat data collectively provide a wealth of information on the workings of the Earth system, including insights into factors contributing to climate change.

* * * 

“Evidently NASA doesn’t want to continue reporting falling ocean levels, so they shut down their measuring satellite,” says Bob.

20 thoughts on “NASA satellite no longer measuring sea levels – Why? Because they’re falling?”

  1. huh? it will remain in orbit for at least one Thousand years until it finally plummets into earth’s atmosphere. That’s plenty of time to get up there and haul it in for study or to recycle its more valuable elemental constituents. Maybe when it gets to the altitude of the space station they can send out a robotic shuttle to retrieve it. Just pulling that off would be worth the cost and what could be learned from such endeavor.

    • @AndrewS what a idiotic comment of a moron low life human

      do u know we have bases on moon? mars?
      since the 60s?

      a antigravity based space fleet with suprauiminal and time travel capabilities?

      i bet if i would would know that u woulldnt be a stupid turd witch u are

      making idiotic first grade level coments like u did

      • @asasdfsd Oh how kind you are, not. And you don’t even use anything close to a name, just jibberish like your inane comment full of mis-spellings and pure nonsense. Moon base my ass! What pray tell, does “suprauiminal” mean? Please don’t tell me: 1. you wouldn’t be able to. And 2. I’d rather remain as you think I am, though plenty of others know better.


    Be honest in your opinion, Jason-1 is replaced by Jason-2. Jason-3 is on test in France. Above link proves a difference in Jason-2 and Envisat but they both still show a rise in sea level and not a decline. If you want to prove temperature drops and ice ages in a scientific way then use recent data and don’t prove your statement on old data caused by a La Nina drop of temperature and subsequent decline in the 2011 and 2012 period.

    • Okay. Let’s use your reference. It says “the rise in mean sea level has thus been estimated as 3.17 mm/year.”
      ( )

      For those who are metrically challenged, 3.17 mm equals 1/8 inch.

      I’m not going to get too excited about a sea-level rise of 1/8 inch per year.

      Especially when satellite measurements show that sea levels have fallen in two out of the last four years.

      That’s a major turn around.

      Rising sea levels are normal.

      Sea levels have risen 350 to 400 feet (4,200 to 4,800 inches) since the end of the last ice age (about 11,500 years ago).

      4,800 inches divided by 11,500 years equals an average rise of .417 inches per year.

      Or using the lower number, 4,200 inches divided by 11,500 years equals .365 inches per year.

      That’s been going on year after year for 11,500 years. Rising sea levels are normal.

      And we’re supposed to be concerned about a rise of 1/8 inch per year?

  3. Strangely, if one should consider that there IS a group of science minded people that consider the possibility of the theory of an expanding Earth, the question becomes, actually how do we know that the satellite was falling or the sea levels were rising when we are not necessarily 100% certain of a true point of reference? One can ASSUME a rock solid point of reference, but is that the case? One can ASSUME a rate at which the satellite’s orbit decays, but is that a fact? Too much comes down to computer algorithms that may or may not reflect reality. When we are looking at an instrument to give us data to the 10ths of inches, then it needs to be operating at an altitude also precise to the10th of inch, and the rate or orbital decay need be understood also to the 10th of inch. But with HAARP bumping up the ionosphere at odd times and places, along with the fact that we are traveling through space that we do not necessarily know the “dirt density,” we can only guess what the impacts will be on the computer algorithms accuracy. It reminds me of the interesting point of interest, if you will, of the 9 earthquake off Japan as having moved Japan 6 inches, but there was no frame of reference for you to determine what impact that had. Was it referencing China or the US or Indonesia? It may be possible that the Earth “grew” a 10th of an inch, thus the sea level rise would have no specific meaning.

    • I often think the same of the climate computer models !

      Just how do they establish the TRUE initial boundary condition ?

      Just like all those people experimenting to prove back radiation – Just how do they establish the TRUE initial boundary condition ?

      Because without proof of THAT your measurements – no matter how precise – are meaningless !

  4. NASA does continue to monitor sea-levels with Jason-2 and in March 2015 (IIRC) they plan to launch Jason-3 to take the place of Jason-2 since the satellites are only expected to last for so long. Though I do find it interesting how one article seems to stress the “precise” and “very accurate” measurements of it. I would be very interested in knowing how NASA measures the sea level vs ESA with their Envisat. If its all a matter of massaging the data or applying algorithms to have the data “make sense” then how can we truly make an accurate determination of sea levels?

  5. I don’t think the shutdown of Jason-1 is an attempt to hide anything, Jason-2 is still operating, and Jason-3 scheduled for launch in 2015.
    With all of its fuel for maneuvering depleted… Contact with the satellite was lost on June 21 and efforts to re-establish it failed. On Monday, the satellite was ordered to turn off its attitude control systems. Jason-1 will slowly turn away from the sun and its solar-powered batteries will drain within the next 90 days, NASA said.
    I am a bit puzzled though by the above paragraph, if all contact was lost, then how could they order it to turn off it’s attitude control system? Something lost in translation from Nasaese into English?

  6. Satellites only have a useful life of around 10 years. They constantly require small positioning adjustments made by small “rocket” motors. The fuel for the rocket motors eventually exhausted.

    Normally, before the 10 year life is reached a replacement satellite unit is prepared and launched.
    – i.e. if the project has an ongoing status.

    Communication satellites are renewed on a regular basis. Countries or companies that set up a contract with NASA or some other launching company for communication satellite system specify a time period with a corresponding amount of satellites to cover that period.

    Where satellite communications are part of no fail system there maybe a backup unit already in space or another on the ground ready to be launched in the event of some failure.

  7. Sea levels. Falling and the sea floor is spreading from ocean volcanos. There are Many thosands
    of volcanos in the ocean. Millions of smaller vents that are much like a larger volcano.

  8. ‘Earth in Upheaval?’

    Instead of sea levels falling, is it possible that landmass is rising? Perhaps there are factors going on at the core that are changing the levels of the continental landmasses? We know in the last ice age that the increased mass of ice deformed land and has resulted in rebound in certain areas. But, is something else occurring? Perhaps we need to look at fluctuations in elevation on a global scale? I’m sure satellites have been measuring the precision of Earths radius over the past few decades?

    • The whole ‘sea levels falling/rising’ thing is like a can of worms. The Continents do ‘float’ on the earth’s mantle, so one could expect some extremely slow motion bobbing up and down over extremely long periods of time. And yes, there is glacial rebound.

      However, there is no precision measurement of earth’s radius because the earth is not anywhere close to a perfect sphere. Say for example the radius at Death Valley, some 200 ft. below sea level, vs. radius at the summit of Mt. Everest.

  9. Sea levels have been falling (quite rapidly actually) since 1985.
    This was confirmed by several guage measurements in the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian Oceans since the mid 80’s and we also know that sea levels fell 2.5 inches from 1992 thru 2000 in Tuvalu in the Pacific. Then they fell another 5mm per year since 2010 also. So sea levels have been falling since 1985. Forget NASA. We don’t have to wait for their false, agenda driven information. They have no integrity left these days.

  10. The data of Envisat showed that sealevel rises by 2,7 mm/yr. But Envisat died.
    The data of Jason-1 show that sealevel risis by 2,7 mm/yr. Lower than 3 mm/year… and now Jason-1 is gone.

    The only remaining satellite Jason-2 reports that sealevel rises more than 3 mm/yr.
    It’s probably pure coïncidence that only the highest scoring satellite remains.

  11. Measurement of “rising sea level” is meaningless without also measuring “rising land level”. The rate of expansion of the earth calculated by measuring the age of rock at the bottom of the ocean was confirmed by a 27 year NASA study using GPS. It was found the earth expands 18-20 mm/year. That result is hard to find because it was dismissed as a measurement error. Admitting its validity would require an explanation and few within an established government program are ready to open that door because it means challenging basic assumptions of physics. But regardless of one’s opinions on that subject, the expansion was actually measured and it means earth’s radius expands about 9mm/year (3/8″), more than the range of the argument about sea level. If a satellite using the center of the earth as a reference reports sea level is rising 3mm/yr then tide gauge readings can go down 6mm/yr and everybody can be right without anything really happening.

  12. The continents rebound after an ice age , they “wring”,
    as do temperatures , look at the graphs , small
    variations mean little .

  13. The only way to fully make sense of any changes in sea levels would be to also measure changes in ocean depths and changes in continental altitude levels as well. Then it may be possible to determine where the Sea level changes are coming from.
    I suspect that one could measure falling sea levels in one location and rising levels in another simultaneously.

Comments are closed.