IPCC too blinkered and corrupt to save -- (global warming deniers) Part XXXVI

National Post ^ | October 26, 2007 | Lawrence Solomon

[Delacon]

Vincent Gray has begun a second career as a climate-change activist. His motivation springs from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a body that combats global warming by advocating the reduction of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Dr. Gray has worked relentlessly for the IPCC as an expert reviewer since the early 1990s.

But Dr. Gray isn't an activist in the cause of enforcing the Kyoto Protocol and realizing the other goals of the worldwide IPCC process. To the contrary, Dr. Gray's mission, in his new role as cofounder of The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, is to stop the IPCC from spreading climate-change propaganda that undermines the integrity of science.

"The whole process is a swindle," he states, in large part because the IPCC has a blinkered mandate that excludes natural causes of global warming.

" The Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) 1992 defined 'climate change' as changes in climate caused by human interference with atmospheric composition," he explains. "The task of the IPCC, therefore, has been to accumulate evidence to support this belief that all changes in the climate are caused by human interference with the atmosphere. Studies of natural climate change have largely been used to claim that these are negligible compared with 'climate change.' "

Dr. Gray is one of the 2,000 to 2,500 top scientists from around the world whom the IPCC often cites as forming the basis of its findings. No one has been a more faithful reviewer than Dr. Gray over the years -- he has been an IPCC expert almost from the start, and perhaps its most prolific contributor, logging almost 1,900 comments on the IPCC's final draft of its most recent report alone.

But Dr. Gray, who knows as much about the IPCC's review processes as anyone, has been troubled by what he sees as an appalling absence of scientific rigour in the IPCC's review process.

"Right from the beginning, I have had difficulty with this procedure. Penetrating questions often ended without any answer. Comments on the IPCC drafts were rejected without explanation, and attempts to pursue the matter were frustrated indefinitely.

"Over the years, as I have learned more about the data and procedures of the IPCC, I have found increasing opposition by them to providing explanations, until I have been forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organization from the very beginning."

Dr. Gray has detailed extensively the areas in which global warming science falls down. One example that this New Zealander provides comes from his region of the globe: "We are told that the sea level is rising and will soon swamp all of our cities. Everybody knows that the Pacific island of Tuvalu is sinking. Al Gore told us that the inhabitants are invading New Zealand because of it.

"Around 1990 it became obvious that the local tide-gauge did not agree -- there was no evidence of 'sinking.' So scientists at Flinders University, Adelaide, were asked to check whether this was true. They set up new, modern, tide-gauges in 12 Pacific islands, including Tuvalu, confident that they would show that all of them are sinking.

"Recently, the whole project was abandoned as there was no sign of a change in sea level at any of the 12 islands for the past 16 years. In 2006, Tuvalu even rose."

Other expert reviewers at the IPCC, and scientists elsewhere around the globe, share Dr. Gray's alarm at the conduct of the IPCC. An effort by academics is now underway to reform this UN organization, and have it follow established scientific norms. Dr. Gray was asked to endorse this reform effort, but he refused, saying: "The IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only 'reform' I could envisage would be its abolition."

--- - Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and the Urban Renaissance Institute.

www.urban-renaissance.org

CV OF A DENIER:

Vincent Gray is a graduate of the University of Cambridge, with a PhD in physical chemistry. He has published more than 100 scientific papers and authored the book, The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001.'

Dr. Gray has participated in all of the science reviews of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and in 2006 was a visiting scholar at the Beijing Climate Center.

[Delacon]

Back on 3/24 I rediscovered(hat tip Freeper Libwhacker)  a very overlooked series of articles written by Lawrence Solomon of the National Post that sought to show how there was no "consensus" on global warming. Mr. Solomon didn't have to dig up illuminati believing bloggers, corporate shills or political pundits to do it. He just found some of the most respected scientists in their respective fields of study. At the time, I could find 27 articles in the series. I since found there are 38 so far.  I will be posting the remaining 11 articles over the next few weeks. Mr. Solomon has just written a book based on the series called The Deniers: The World-Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**and those who are too fearful to do so. Freepmail me with a request to join my "the deniers"/global warming ping list if you'd like. Here is the series:

The Post's series on scientists who buck the conventional wisdom on climate science. Here is the series so far:

Statistics needed -- The Deniers Part I
Warming is real -- and has benefits -- The Deniers Part II
The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science -- The Deniers Part III
Polar scientists on thin ice -- The Deniers Part IV
The original denier: into the cold -- The Deniers Part V
The sun moves climate change -- The Deniers Part VI
Will the sun cool us? -- The Deniers Part VII
The limits of predictability -- The Deniers Part VIII
Look to Mars for the truth on global warming -- The Deniers Part IX
Limited role for C02 -- the Deniers Part X

End the chill -- The Deniers Part XI
Clouded research -- The Deniers Part XII
Allegre's second thoughts -- The Deniers XIII
The heat's in the sun -- The Deniers XIV
Unsettled Science -- The Deniers XV
Bitten by the IPCC -- The Deniers XVI
Little ice age is still within us -- The Deniers XVII
Fighting climate 'fluff' -- The Deniers XVIII 
Science, not politics -- The Deniers XIX
Gore's guru disagreed -- The Deniers XX

The ice-core man -- The Deniers XXI
Some restraint in Rome -- The Deniers XXII
Discounting logic -- The Deniers XXIII
Dire forecasts aren't new -- The Deniers XXIV
They call this a consensus? -- Part XXV
NASA chief Michael Griffin silenced - Part XXVI
Forget warming - beware the new ice age -- Part XXVII
Open mind sees climate clearly -- Part XXVIII
Models trump measurements -- Part XXIX
What global warming, Australian skeptic asks -- Part XXX

In the eye of the storm of global warming -- Part XXXI
From chaos, coherence -- Part XXXII
The aerosol man -- Part XXXIII
The Hot Trend is cool yachts -- Part XXXIV
You still need your parka in Antarctica -- Part XXXV
IPCC too blinkered and corrupt to save -- Part XXXVI
Why melting of ice sheets 'is impossible' -- Part XXXVII
Climate change by Jupiter -- Part XXXVIII

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/pages/climate-change-the-deniers.aspx

 

In case you missed it up the thread, from Steelyourfaith...                                                               

[xcamel]

FReepmail me to get on or off

Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown

New!!: Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH

The Great Global Warming Swindle Video - back on the net!! (click here)

Ping me if you find one I've missed.

---

[Delacon]

ping and I hope y’all watch the show on C-Span2 next Sunday.

[SoConPubbie]

Paging John McCain, Mr. McCain, please plug in your brain!

[Delacon]

“Paging John McCain, Mr. McCain, please plug in your brain!”

Funny you should say that...

Global Warming? An Open Letter to John McCain
Family Security Matters ^ | April 28, 2008 | Raymond S. Kraft
Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2008 7:05:52 PM by Delacon
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2009401/posts

[Free Vulcan]

bookmark

[Always Right]

The obvious and flagrant corruption of science by the IPCC has really lead me to question the integrity of the scientific community.

[Delacon]

“The obvious and flagrant corruption of science by the IPCC has really lead me to question the integrity of the scientific community.”

I hope you read the whole series. It may restore some of your respect/trust in the scientific community and at the same time diminish your trust in international government organizations. That would be the desired effect.

[sam_paine]

The obvious and flagrant corruption of science by the IPCC has really lead me to question the integrity of the scientific community

By that logic, the obvious and flagrant corruption of religion by Obama's Rev Wright should really lead you to question the integrity of the Christian community.

What is fair to say is that any organization touched by the UN is probably corrupt.

[sam_paine]

15 seconds behind ya!

[AFPhys]

This is the other Dr. Gray - excellent scientist. He’s going to be a real problem for the IPCC to get around.

[Delacon]

Great minds and all that. ;)

[Always Right]

By that logic, the obvious and flagrant corruption of religion by Obama's Rev Wright should really lead you to question the integrity of the Christian community.

Oh but there are major and important differences in that analogy. There is nearly universal condemnation of Wright from the Christian community. I have seen only a few brave scientist speak out against the complete corruption of the IPCC. Of course some of that is media driven, but if important scientific organization spoke out against the corruption of the IPCC, the media would have to report it. So far the silence is deafening.

[Always Right]

I hope you read the whole series. It may restore some of your respect/trust in the scientific community and at the same time diminish your trust in international government organizations. That would be the desired effect.

First, where have I shown trust in the international government organizations? There is nothing there to diminish. Secondly, when there is condemnation of the IPCC process by respected scientific organizations, that would restore my trust in the scientific community. Until then, the scientific community deserves little respect.

[Delacon]

Boy I feel sorry for the baby in that bathwater.

[Always Right]

Boy I feel sorry for the baby in that bathwater

????  Where is the baby?  All I see is toilet water from so-called scientific organizations.

American Association for the Advancement of Science

In December of 2006, the American Association for the Advancement of Science adopted an official statement on climate change in which they stated, "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society....The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now."

Federation of American Scientists

In their Energy and Environment Overview, the Federation of American Scientists state, “There is no serious doubt that human activity is altering the earth's climate in potentially catastrophic ways. Even skeptics are forced to admit that the risk is real and that prudence demands action if only as an insurance policy, the only serious debate is about how best to respond."

American Meteorological Society

The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2003 said:

There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of long-term climate change... Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems.^[20]

American Geophysical Union

The American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement adopted by the society in 2003 and revised in 2007 affirms that rising levels of greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

American Institute of Physics

The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics endorsed the AGU statement on human-induced climate change:^[26]

The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics has endorsed a position statement on climate change adopted by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Council in December 2003.

American Astronomical Society

The American Astronomical Society has endorsed the AGU statement:

In endorsing the "Human Impacts on Climate" statement [issued by the American Geophysical Union], the AAS recognizes the collective expertise of the AGU in scientific subfields central to assessing and understanding global change, and acknowledges the strength of agreement among our AGU colleagues that the global climate is changing and human activities are contributing to that change.

American Physical Society

In November of 2007, the American Physical Society (APS) adopted an official statement on climate change: "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now."

American Chemical Society

The American Chemical Society stated:

Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earth’s climate system is changing rapidly in response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases and absorbing aerosol particles (IPCC, 2007). There is very little room for doubt that observed climate trends are due to human activities. The threats are serious and action is urgently needed to mitigate the risks of climate change.

The reality of global warming, its current serious and potentially disastrous impacts on Earth system properties, and the key role emissions from human activities play in driving these phenomena have been recognized by earlier versions of this ACS policy statement (ACS, 2004), by other major scientific societies, including the American Geophysical Union (AGU, 2003), the American Meteorological Society (AMS, 2007) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, 2007), and by the U. S. National Academies and ten other leading national academies of science (NA, 2005). This statement reviews key global climate change impacts and recommends actions required to mitigate or adapt to currently anticipated consequences.

National Research Council (US)

In 2001, the Committee on the Science of Climate Change of the National Research Council published Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions This report explicitly endorses the IPCC view of attribution of recent climate change as representing the view of the scientific community:

The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century... The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue.

Federal Climate Change Science Program (US)

On May 2, 2006, the Federal Climate Change Science Program commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002 released the first of 21 assessments. Though it did not state what percentage of climate change might be anthropogenic, the assessment concluded:

Studies ... show clear evidence of human influences on the climate system (due to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, and stratospheric ozone). ... The observed patterns of change over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural processes alone, nor by the effects of short-lived atmospheric constituents (such as aerosols and tropospheric ozone) alone.

American Quaternary Association

The American Quaternary Association (AMQUA) has stated, “Few credible Scientists now doubt that humans have influenced the documented rise of global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution,” citing “the growing body of evidence that warming of the atmosphere, especially over the past 50 years, is directly impacted by human activity.” ^[33]

Geological Society of America

"The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries. Furthermore, the potential implications of global climate change and the time scale over which such changes will likely occur require active, effective, long-term planning."

 

[Gondring]

[...]integrity of the scientific community.

Yeah, it might turn out that they are the types to judge a whole community based on what a few do! :-/

[Delacon]

Don’t get me wrong. I am with you when it comes those in the climatology field. Specificly those that have allowed politics to corrupt their studies. I do have a problem with you and your broad brush. There are more scientists trying to broaden the body of human knowledge and increase the quality of life of everyone more than any other COMMUNITY.

[Delacon]

beat me to it didn’t ya.

[Gondring]

"Recently, the whole project was abandoned as there was no sign of a change in sea level at any of the 12 islands for the past 16 years. In 2006, Tuvalu even rose."

The MEAN hasn't gone up...but the tides are more extreme. So, extreme high tides ARE higher than in the past, but the deniers can say that there's no problem because the lows are more low than the past, meaning the average is the same.

I guess that to such folks, blazing summers and frigid winters would be a "moderate" climate--since it averages out in the middle.

[Delacon]

Well yes if what we are talking about is ocean levels(ya know the whole ice is melting and the seas are rising thing). You go for a mean.

[Always Right]

A few???? I just listed about a dozen American scientific organizations that have taken the radical global warming positions. Where are the scientific organizations trying to insert some well needed skepticism into the largely outrageous claims? Certainly not every scientist is corrupt by politics, but it seems most are too afraid to speak up against this nonsense.

[Gondring]

If melting ice were the only component to climate change, then perhaps. But of course, that could be just demonstrating the sinking of the atoll.

What Dr. Gray doesn't mention is the ENSO effects, etc.

Also, why doesn't Dr. Gray mention the other tidal station at Tuvalu, I wonder? Actually, I don't wonder...I know he doesn't mention it because it contradicts his argument, the same as the majority of other stations put up by Flinders.

I also find it oddly asymmetrical to attack the IPCC for being biased in their desire for the end result, while not pointing out that Flinders wanted the new gage to show no sea level change--Australia was funding the program to demonstrate that there was no need to give asylum to Tuvalu refugees of rising waters.

Why must both sides be so dishonest?

[Gondring]

"have taken the radical global warming positions"

Odd definition of "radical" if you are referring to all in your post.

[aruanan]

Why must both sides be so dishonest?

You did know, didn't you, that the sea has been rising since the end of the last ice age and that the rise has been less and less each year. We've gone from meters per century to perhaps a millimeter plus/minus a fraction of a millimeter per year, a significant portion of which is due to thermal effects, not to increased amount of water in the oceans.

Dishonesty has been overwhelmingly on the IPCC side. How much better off will the world (meaning its inhabitants) be when millions of man-years of labor have been flushed down the bureaucratic toilet by the IPCC crowd with no effect detectable above background noise? The anti-IPCC "side" aren't asking to have the world's economy turned over to them to fiddle with.

[Delacon]

Hey you were the one the bring up the whole high tide/low tide argument. I understand that measuring ocean levels is a dicey thing. Islands do surf on a crust of tetonic plates for one. But for you to say that tides are rising higher and going lower and that the mean is not a good measure, well thats intellectually dishonest. As for the other stations, links please. It doesn’t pass the smell test. If stations close together aren’t getting simular readings, then their methodology is screwed up. Or you are saying that one of the most respected scientists in his field actually thought he could cherry pick the findings of just one station and think he could get away with it?

[Delacon]

“Or you are saying that one of the most respected scientists in his field actually thought he could cherry pick the findings of just one station and think he could get away with it?”

I need to add that his cherry picking would be peer reviewed up the wazzoo for taking what is now considered such a contrarian stance.

[BufordP]

The Deniers: The World-Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud

Author: Lawrence Solomon

Upcoming Schedule

	Sunday, May 4, at 4:00 PM
	Sunday, May 11, at 3:30 AM
	Sunday, May 11, at 11:15 AM

About the Program

Lawrence Solomon talks about prominent scientists who have dissented from the view of global warming championed by Al Gore and other environmentalists. Mr. Solomon spoke at an event hosted by the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Cooler Heads Coalition at the Dirksen House Office Building.

About the Author

Lawrence Solomon is a columnist for the National Post (Canada) and is executive director of the Urban Renaissance Institute, a division of Energy Probe Research Foundation. He is the author of "Energy Shock."

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

DOOMAGE!

Global Warming PING!

You have been pinged because of your interest in environmentalism, alarmist wackos, mainstream media doomsday hype, and other issues pertaining to global warming.

Freep-mail me to get on or off: Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to all note-worthy threads on global warming.

Greenpeace Founder: We Must Go Nuclear

Global Warming on Free Republic

Latest from Global Warming News Site

Latest from Greenie Watch

Latest from Junk Science

Latest from Terra Daily

[Gondring]

You did know, didn't you, that the sea has been rising since the end of the last ice age and that the rise has been less and less each year. We've gone from meters per century to perhaps a millimeter plus/minus a fraction of a millimeter per year, a significant portion of which is due to thermal effects, not to increased amount of water in the oceans.

Of course. But then there's also many regional and local effects, such as salinity decreases with increased ice melt, isostatic rebound, etc.

Dishonesty has been overwhelmingly on the IPCC side.

Agreed. Most of what I see on the other side is simple scientific ignorance, not intentional deceit.

[FBD]

I have to say; you backed up your *broad brush strokes* pretty well, with those declarations from the various disciplines of the scientific “community”.

well done

[Steve Van Doorn]

This short youtube video is the best shortened explanation of what Global warming is about

[Steve Van Doorn]

Tuvalu sea levels:

There seems to be a slight curve but it is hardly noticeable.

http://www.john-daly.com/press/press-01c.htm#tuvalu

[Gondring]

As for the other stations, links please. It doesn’t pass the smell test.

"There are two tide gauges on Tuvalu. One, operated by the University of Hawaii [...]"
or
"Tide gauge records for Funafuti are available since 1977, based mainly on an installation run by the University of Hawaii."
or
"There is another, less well publicised tide gauge on Tuvalu - also focusing on tidal averages - run by the University of Hawaii's sea level centre, covering a much longer period, from 1976 to 2000. It has recorded a 2.2cm rise per decade in average sea levels."
or
"The sea level trend to date is +6.4 mm/year but the magnitude of the trend continues to vary widely from month to month as the data set grows. Accounting for the precise levelling results and inverted barometric pressure effect, the trend is +5.7 mm/year. A nearby gauge, with a longer record but less precision and datum control, shows a trend of +0.9 mm/year."
(et cetera).

Here's the University of Hawaii Sea Level Center's page for the Tuvalu station.

You must be smelling the rotting cherries that Dr. Gray picked. :-)

Or you are saying that one of the most respected scientists in his field actually thought he could cherry pick the findings of just one station and think he could get away with it?

Are you getting Dr. Vincent Gray mixed up with Dr. William Gray, perhaps? This one is a chemist. The meteorologist is at Colorado State University.

Note that the effects of the climate can be swamping out the tidal signal. Also, note that the island could be sinking because of groundwater mining from increased paving. That would also be a secondary explanation for the increased saltwater intrusion (i.e., not just from rising tides).

In other words, I don't believe the data necessarily indicate that global warming is flooding out Tuvalu...but I do believe that Dr. Gray is cherry picking and misleading as much as the other side.

[Gondring]

There seems to be a slight curve but it is hardly noticeable.

When your entire atoll is near sea level, that small increase in maximum sea level is quite significant! :-)

One of the changes in climate that is occurring, regardless of whether it's caused by man or natural, is that it is becoming more extreme. Highs are higher; lows are lower. Even if the mean is the same, it's the highs that flood people out, and the more intense winds combining with even an unchanged tide can lead to more flooding.

ENSO seems to dominate the signal.

[Gondring]

I need to add that his cherry picking would be peer reviewed up the wazzoo for taking what is now considered such a contrarian stance.

Please show me where he has allowed his claims to be subjected to peer review. I have not seen it anywhere.

He has submitted comments to the IPCC, but has not submitted any climate stuff he has published for peer review, to my knowledge.

[Gondring]

From here:

Examination of long-term records from other stations around the world suggests that a record of more than 20 years is required before any trend in sea level can be identified with certainty. Analysis of the data from monitoring stations around the Pacific with data records longer than 25 years produces an average increase in sea level of 0.8 mm per year. This result is on the low side of the estimate made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1995 which suggests that the global trend is between 1 and 2 mm per year. However, it should be noted that this rate of change is about ten times more rapid than the average over the previous 3000 years as determined from the geological record.

The South Pacific monitoring stations were only commissioned between 1992 and 1994, and so do not have the long-term records required for a complete trend analysis. Despite this limitation, it is still worth considering the current trends in sea level changes in the South Pacific. The data can give some indication of the possible cause of some local event such as crop loss or erosion. It is possible to determine whether this local event was due to a short-term natural event such as a tropical cyclone or whether it was due to long-term sea level changes.

Table 1 shows the approximate changes in sea level at the sites of the South Pacific gauges between their establishment and January 2000.

Table 1 Recent short-term sea level trends for the SEAFRAME stations up to October 2000.

Location	Number of months of record	Sea level trend (mm/year)	Change from previous month
Fiji	96	+6.4	+0.4
Vanuatu	82	+6.6	+0.6
Tonga	92	+21.5	-0.4
Cook Islands	91	+6.1	-0.2
Samoa	91	-0.6	+0.1
Kiribati	89	-11.0	+0.5
Marshall Islands	84	+5.6	+1.2
Tuvalu	89	-5.0	+1.0
Nauru	85	-9.5	+0.6
Solomon Islands	71 (with gaps)	+15.1	+0.9
Papua New Guinea	58 (with gaps)	+21.2	+0.5

These values show that there have been significant sea level falls at Kiribati, Tuvalu and Nauru since the start of the project. The stations in Tonga, Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea have shown a marked sea level rise. These larger changes in sea level are believed to be due to the recent El Niño and La Niña events, and the sea level changes will be reduced when the effects of these events subside.

 

[Steve Van Doorn]

Beside the obvious fact that this study only shows a five year period of time. It also shows that the sea level is relatively level on Tuvalu. I fail to see how the seas are getting higher high’s and lower low’s from either your study or from the chart I shown. Gravity is fixed for the sun and the moon. During the spring the high tides are much stronger then any other time of the year.

We do know the oceans are rising ever so slowly and this would greatly affect islands like those. I find it odd anyone moved to those islands to begin with. Just a major storm would kill them.