Steve Case sent this over. The latest sea level scam is to add 0.3 mm.year on to the already bloated sea level rise numbers. The justification being that the sea floor is getting lower.
It is possible that the inventors of the GIA scam have never been to a swimming pool and observed that the elevation of the surface of the pool is the same – regardless of how deep the bottom is. Making the bottom deeper does not make the top higher.
These people are crooks….
Saying the sea floor is sinking, is the same as saying the land is rising
Now they are going to try and have it both ways………….
The Moon is getting further from us every year. Where’s the Selenic Isostatic Adjustment (of a little over 35mm/yr)?
For whoever missed it last time, a less host-compressed version of this chart: http://k.min.us/idFxzI.jpg
Tinypic.com hosts files free but if they are large they re-compress them as soon as they get much traffic.
thanks Nik, that’s a hoot
Much better this time, and I saved it!
That is really good. I will use it .
What’s funny is that they pretend to know how much the bottom has sank or the top has risen. They don’t.
Yep, the latest is the land is rebounding from the weight of all those glaciers…
….the sea floor is sinking
and that’s why New York is not under water like they predicted
I’m confused, is that supposed to be a white chicken, or a red one?
it does take care of Envisat recalcitrant in showing no increase whatsoever
The sea floor is getting lower and that is masking the sea level rise ?
Sounds like they are running short of excuses nobody can check.
Yes, but they said that their real objective for fudging the sea level with GIA was to better measure ocean volume. Do they think we are that gullible? Why not use a y-axis that is ocean volume instead of obfuscation with a y-axis that says “mean sea level” if not to make the public think that they are actually measuring sea level?
Thank the authors write, the share great is perfect.
Um, that the graph pivots at 1993 suggests that 1993 was near the end of the glacial period, while 2011 is far away, no?
I think that if the glacial period ended over 10 thousand years ago, then both ends of the line would be moving the same ammount. Iow, not only is it a bogus adjustment, but it’s been wrongly applied.
I don’t think anyone disagrees, Sleepalot, & honestly it’s such an obviously deliberate “mistake” on the part of these agencies there’s not much you can do but laugh.
“Well, obviously. I don’t know if you were alive in 1993, but let me assure you we were stuck under miles (1.6kms) of ice. We inaugurated our First Unprecedented Black Preznit in January of 1993, and the rehugliKKan Congress forced us into Andropogenic Global Climate Disruption because they racist all the time. But that was 1,000,000 years ago, because the Arctic will be ice-free by 2012^H3^H6^H8. Then you’ll see!” –Ill Wind Markos
Even IF the land was rising AND/OR the sea floor is falling – the only thing that is relevant is the height of the tide relative to the shoreline!
While relevant and the only meaningful measure, it does not say why. The sea relative to the coast is a regional and in some cases sub regional. Averaging the effects are meaningless because of the varied causes for the change. If it is true that regional weather patterns of 40 to 80 years affect the regional sea level in one location then you would need records ten times as long as the longest possible variation before you could determine an average sea level or even a meaningful change in sea level. We can see the regional changes in sea level over the last glacial inter glacial shift because enough time has past but comparing that to any recent changes is comparing an apple seed to a full grown apple tree and saying the trees are not growing like they used to.
Awesome work. Kudos to the designer of that graph.
Steve, might I suggest you make a blink graph with the hidden yellow sea level decline also? Maybe blink the yellow with another color.
I believe it is stuff like this that will break the AGW cult and hopefully drive them insane in the process.
It looks like these people have discovered a Meme Design-Pattern (I’m thinking of Design Patterns in OOP). In this case, the basic pattern involves a process that’s works in the a way that’s opposite to the one you’re purporting to forecast or measure. Like OOP Designs, Meme Designs clearly have many uses, such as bringing forecasts back in line with observations, and exaggerating trends. I can’t wait to see what other clever applications will be found. Or what other interesting Designs these people can come up with. Taken as a whole, this effort may lead to a new discipline.
SG: “It is possible that the inventors of the GIA scam have never been to a swimming pool and observed that the elevation of the surface of the pool is the same – regardless of how deep the bottom is. Making the bottom deeper does not make the top higher.”
1. if a swimming pool sinks but the water level stays the same relative to land surface, then more water must have gone in to it.
2. if the pool remains the same level but land rises, and water level keeps up with land level, more water must have gone in to it.
Your example is not well made. They are trying to account for the relative change in surface levels between land level and sea floor, with allegedly the sea floor dropping. They also claim land level is rising.
Your pool example has these surfaces static.
The latest hype is frozen water (ice;) enteing the ocean will warm it.
I see, so water at the bottom of the ocean will drown Manhattan.
They should vega test the ocean to see how its biofeedback is doing, this would help them to know how it feels. Really I am serious and while they are at it they should all go and spend all the money they looted to buy into The Gia wellness bullshit.