Junk Science At Its Worst

I’m so tired of these people lying and cheating – about everything.

During the 20th century, sea level has risen by an average of 1.7 millimeters (about 1/16 of an inch) per year. Since 1993, NASA satellites have observed an average sea level rise of 3.27 millimeters (about 1/8 of an inch) per year. A better understanding of how climate change and sea level rise are shaping barrier islands will also lead to a more complete grasp of how these dynamic forces are affecting more populated coastal areas

http://www.sciencedaily.com/

Tide gauges don’t show any increase after 1993. These idiotic numbers (3.27) come from changing in midstream to an uncalibrated, cherry-picked, manipulated, satellite data set. Call it the CU/NASA nature trick.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/

Some satellites (Envisat) don’t show any increase in sea level over the last eight years.

About these ads

About stevengoddard

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

10 Responses to Junk Science At Its Worst

  1. NikFromNYC says:

    I got screamed at on an AGW enthusiast site, told I should be ashamed of myself, that I was stupid, that I didn’t really have a Ph.D., that blah blah blah…for posting a chart of representative tide gauge records. However, the one valid point was a lack of publishing my collection in the literature. Well, I thought, let’s dig a few sea level studies up. And imagine my surprise to not find just linear trends but universal signs of recent deceleration!

    Sea levels show deceleration since 1930:

    http://jcronline.org/doi/abs/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1?prevSearch=all%3A+deceleration&searchHistoryKey=

    That’s the USA and Pacific Ocean.

    http://jcronline.org/doi/abs/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00141.1?prevSearch=all%3A+deceleration&searchHistoryKey=

    That’s Australia (deceleration since 1940).

    http://www.jcronline.org/doi/abs/10.2112/06-0748.1?journalCode=coas

    That one says: “Unambiguous evidence for fingerprints of glacial melting was not found, most likely due to the presence of other signals present in sea-level records that cannot easily be distinguished.”

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.3370100203/abstract

    That one is Europe and says: “no evidence was found for MSL accelerations significantly different from zero over the period 1870 to the present.”

    http://www.joelschwartz.com/pdfs/Holgate.pdf

    That one is a world wide sampling that says: “The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century.”

    http://research.fit.edu/sealevelriselibrary/documents/doc_mgr/403/Pacific_Introduction_to_SLR_-_Mitchell_et_al.pdf

    That one was the Pacific based on the longest records available which says: “The estimated average rate of sea level rise from the longest records is computed to be +0.3 mm/yr, almost an order of magnitude less than the IPCC estimates.”

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.1771/abstract

    That one was Europe and N. America which says: “Most sea-level data originate from Europe and North America, and both the sets display evidence for a positive acceleration, or ‘inflexion’, around 1920–1930 and a negative one around 1960. These inflexions are the main contributors to reported accelerations since the late 19th century, and to decelerations during the mid- to late 20th century.”

    Another study was by one of the RealClimate team (Rahmstorf). He got his acceleration via adjustment to *actual* sea levels to account for land based water reservoirs while ignoring ground water pumping to the surface. This swam right through peer review. Such adjustments are highly speculative at best and simply fantasy at worst for they do not reflect actual sea level changes!

    • Al Gored says:

      Really. You should be ashamed of yourself for clouding this issue. Only stupid people are limited to facts. And clearly your PhD is not from a recognized New Age Science.

      Now I suppose you think that by posting this information here that it has been “published” – just because it will be openly reviewed by other shameless stupid fact-based readers from the wrong faculties (or worse!).

      Sorry Nik, but that’s not how The Consensus Party works. To qualify as ‘legitimate’ you must submit the right factoid-based models to Party publications to be reviewed by the sanctioned white-coated parrots of the AGW Star Chambers.

      So, try again. See sea level rise. See it accelerate. Try closing your eyes and clicking your heels together, or playing the soundtrack of An Inconvenient Truth while you’re sleeping for a few years. Praise the CO2 brother!

  2. daveburton says:

    Sea levels are rising at some coastal tide stations, and falling at others. That’s not surprising, since the earth’s crust floats on a pool of molten magma, and it’s SLOSHING. Sea levels are rising at a majority of coastal tide stations, but the average rate is only about 1/3 of the claimed 3.3 mm/year, and (more importantly) the rate of rise is NOT accelerating. Even the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (2001) noted the “observational finding of no acceleration in sea level rise during the 20th century” (http://pages.citebite.com/i4h4m7k3aqep)

    Satellites show a higher rate of sea level rise than do most coastal tide stations, but they are measuring a different quantity than are tide stations. Satellites measure global average (mostly over deep ocean) sea level. Coastal tide stations measure only coastal sea level. They are like apples and oranges, and conflating the two to create an appearance of acceleration in rate of sea level rise (as this ScienceDaily article does) is gross scientific malpractice. (Of course, coastal sea level is what matters; slight changes in sea level in the deep ocean are of no consequence.)

    The important takeaway fact is that NEITHER tide stations nor satellites show any sign in acceleration in the very slow rate of sea level rise over the last ~100 years (for tide stations) or 17 years (for satellites). Increased levels of atmospheric CO2 have not resulted in any increase in the rate of sea level rise.

    See also:
    http://www.burtonsys.com/GMSL
    http://www.jcronline.org/doi/pdf/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1
    http://www.burtonsys.com/climate/Critique_of_NC_2010_SLR_AR.pdf

  3. A recent satellite map shows 6-8mm pa rise around NW Australia over 12 years. Darwin tide gauge shows virtually no rise over 100 years of data, and the last few years shows little over 1mm pa. WTF?

    • Mike Davis says:

      The “Magic” of satellite imagery and “Extrapolation” using the “Proper” Al-Gore-Rhythm! The ground in that region must be rising at a pace equal to the sea level rise and you are experiencing “Isostatic Rebound” from the last glacial maximum! The “EX-Perts” say so because their X-Box sim planet virtual planet game has never been proven wrong with the current release of software. There were minor bugs in past versions but reliable sources claim those have been addressed. These days no one wants to waste time finding the multitude of errors obviously in the Game!
      Hope that answers your query!!!! ;)

  4. climate creeper says:

    I thought that this had something to do with the oceans have so much more mass (due to melt & CO2 absorption) that the bottom is dropping at 3mm per year from the shear weight, and therefore, the sea level must have the 3mm added back on to compensate. I estimate that the world will reach critical mass in 10 years, implode and become a black hole. We will need to add infinity mm per year to reach the event horizon (no longer sea level). Since we will be in the black hole, we won’t be aware of it, and will need to rely 100% on computer models to detect it. But if we collect enough taxes, the event horizon will vanish, we will no longer be in a black hole and a heat wave will just be a heat wave.

    • Mike Davis says:

      Actually the evaporation of sea water is placing more moisture in the atmosphere and any day now we can expect more moisture in the atmosphere than the oceans which will become like deserts and the ships will sail the skies!

  5. Vince says:

    Do these people take isostatic rebound into consideration when conducting their analysis of sea-level rise?

    • daveburton says:

      Vince, that’s just about the only thing they take into account.

      The disparity between the (small) measured rate of sea level rise and the alarmists’ (much larger) claimed rate is partially due to the computer model-based “corrections” which the alarmists routinely add to measured rates of coastal sea level rise, to account for land movement. Their adjustments “correct” primarily in one direction: up. They correct for Glacial Isostatic Rebound (which, for most locations, increases the reported rate of sea level rise), but they do not correct for land subsidence due to water, oil & gas wells.

      AR4 admits this (though without mentioning how it biases the result) in the final paragraph of AR4 section 5.5.2.1 (http://pages.citebite.com/o4n3t7c9jnkq). The key sentence is, “Trends in tide gauge records are corrected for GIA using models, but not for other land motions.”

      Correcting only for factors that reduce the average rate of sea level rise, and not for factors that increase it, inflates the reported rate of global mean sea level rise. Actual global mean coastal sea level, as measured by tide gauges, has exhibited no acceleration in the last 80+ years.

      • Grumpy Grampy ;) says:

        I dug a twenty foot hole in my yard so I could have a three story house. I just use the accepted method of applying the GIA method. There is no more structure but a deeper hole makes it relatively taller.

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s