Sea Level Tampering Smoking Gun

The Met Office conveniently provides data  sets showing how sea level data has been tampered with over time. The graph below plots the difference between sea level plots generated in 1987 and 2006.

Like with everything else the hockey team gets their hands on, they lower the past and raise the present.

ScreenHunter_75 Feb. 18 14.26

Gornitz and Lebedeff (1987)

Church and White (2006)

About these ads

About stevengoddard

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

12 Responses to Sea Level Tampering Smoking Gun

  1. squid2112 says:

    I will pose this question once again. With all of the evidence now available to show demonstrably that these folks are fraudulently altering data, can we not begin the necessary court proceedings? I am really growing weary of the wait. I want to see the proper justice in these cases! The is fraud, no matter how you slice it, and there are several folks the need to be sitting in a prison cell.

    • miked1947 says:

      These are only “Estimates” derived by modeling the information available from whatever they are using to measure sea level and the BEST Scientific ASSuptions of “What-if”!
      It does not even qualify as WAG!

  2. Streetcred says:

    If the seas have indeed risen as they claim, then where is the physical evidence on land ? The water must go somewhere, no?

  3. daveburton says:

    I don’t think this represents “adjustments” to the same dataset, like we’ve see with U.S. surface temperature data. Rather, the two datasets represent different sets of tide gauges, processed in different ways.

    The rates of sea-level rise (SLR) at different locations vary considerably. At the best GLOSS-LTT tide gauges, the rate of SLR varies by about 15 mm/year. In fact, at about 1/4 of the best long-term GLOSS-LTT tide gauges, sea-level is falling (because the land is rising, mostly due to glacial isostatic rebound). So if you use sea-level measurements from different locations, you’ll generally calculate different rates of sea-level change.

    As you devastatingly pointed out, Steve, the IPCC used this in AR4 to create the illusion of an acceleration in rate of SLR, by conflating tide-gauge-measured coastal sea-level numbers before 1993 with satellite-measured mid-ocean sea-level numbers after 1993.

    Since these two datasets are based on different sets of tide gauges, it’s unsurprising that they show different rates of seal-level rise. So if you take the differences you’ll see a trend equal to the difference between the two rates, which is what you graphed.

    Additionally, Church & White adjusted their data using Peltier’s GIA estimates (which increase the rate of SLR), and they reported that:

    “An additional spatially uniform field is included in the reconstruction to represent changes in GMSL. Omitting this field results in a much smaller rate of GMSL rise…”

    Gornitz and Lebedeff presumably didn’t do those things, either.

    For an in-depth examination of Church & White 2006, see Tom Moriarty’s article.

    Dave
    http://www.sealevel.info

  4. gator69 says:

    “I am really growing weary of the wait. I want to see the proper justice in these cases!”

    We have seen how the judges have ruled on this “science” before, they suddenly become incapable of basic logic, and seem to think science is beyond their realm, and punt.

    Maybe we need Judge Judy. ;)

  5. daveburton says:

    BTW, here’s the abstract for Gornitz & Lebedeff.

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