Skip to comments.Changing Tides: Research Center Under Fire for 'Adjusted' Sea-Level Data (The hoax continues)
Posted on 06/17/2011 4:33:54 PM PDT by tobyhill
Is climate change raising sea levels, as Al Gore has argued -- or are climate scientists doctoring the data?
The University of Colorados Sea Level Research Group decided in May to add 0.3 millimeters -- or about the thickness of a fingernail -- every year to its actual measurements of sea levels, sparking criticism from experts who called it an attempt to exaggerate the effects of global warming.
"Gatekeepers of our sea level data are manufacturing a fictitious sea level rise that is not occurring," said James M. Taylor, a lawyer who focuses on environmental issues for the Heartland Institute.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Gotta keep that research grant money coming!
Real scientists should have lied about mercury observations, that way we wouldn’t have been saddled with all the complex mathematic of General Relativity. Tensors are too hard.
thanks for posting this.
...and this isn’t the first time they’d fudge the sea level numbers. a few years ago, they did the same thing, with the international tidal gauges.
it is truly amazing, how much outright fraud goes on, in altering official data, and yet the general public is still oblivious...
(Hand raised really really high) I know this one...pick me..pick meeee. Please oh please pick meee.
The dishonest leading the ignorant.....just too easy to do.
At the article, there’s a graphic. The graphic documents a 9 meter sea level rise. If they think the sea level is gonna go up 9 meters, why did they save New Orleans after Katrina?? According to them, it’s just going to flood again.
Should we be buying that beach front property in Arizona now??
Note the word “gatekeepers.” Data that is collected by publicly-paid researchers or officials should NOT require a “gatekeeper.” The data should be readily available for all, for verification, analysis, and use. It is not the private property of the person or agency collecting the data.
That, my friends, is the real problem.
I'm not sure what graphic you're looking at. The one I saw showed a rise of about 5 mm from 1994 to 2010.
you’re correct of course.
i suppose i’m foolish even for being surprised.
when there are so many areas even outside of the AGW hoax,
that the dishonest are leading the ignorant...
Data that is collected by publicly-paid researchers or officials should NOT require a gatekeeper.
agreed! and why do they fight FOIA so hard, like Mann is doing, if their “science” is so “settled” ?
...and along with gatekeepers, they are consolidating of data into fewer and fewer places. like measuring atmospheric CO2 can be done anywhere. yet the ONLY place in the world ever mentioned now, is Mauna Loa. (and before that, they only use dubious ice cores).
and there is NO backup site, for confirming.
if even ONE CO2 reading from last century is higher than now, the entire Hoax is revealed. yet there are, and some were made by Nobel Prize winners in Chemistry:
page 5 and 9, show overall CO2:
180 Years accurate CO2 - Gasanalysis of Air
by Chemical Methods (Short version)
and this one is a good sample of the fraud,
that the gatekeepers you mention, hide:
Sea level Ping
Sea level Ping
I’m amazed at how many enviro-lib friends keep on keeping on as if e-mailgate never happened.
They still talk about Gore like he’s a saint who never asked for a happy ending from the masseuse.
“Is climate change raising sea levels, as Al Gore has argued —”
Waitjustacottonpickinminute! Isn’t Algore the guy who recently bought a multi-million-dollar house on the beach?
Like I said on the other thread, CO2 readings will vary greatly by time of day and location. This paper http://www.agu.org/journals/jd/jd0319/2002JD003085/2002JD003085.pdf has a graph with CO2 measurement outliers as much as +/- 30 ppm and they were taking pains to measure consistently (same time of day, etc). Here are readings taken at different stations
showing a lot of similarity in the rise and some similarity in the seasonal wiggle (depends somewhat on local conditions, Mauna Loa gets a pretty well mixed reading high up in the atmosphere most days)
Whether sea level is rising 1 inch per decade or 1.1 inches per decade is not relevant, it is a trivial amount.
Just needs to be clear, are they adding .3 to the total or the growth each year.
If the .3 is added to the increase each year so it stacks, this is out and out fraud.
If the .3 was added to every year, well then their explanation is given more credence.
And are they calling a lawyer and an atmospheric scientist "experts" on sea level rise? Are they "under fire" from anyone other than a lawyer-activist from the Heartland Institute? This is all rather sensationalist.
Long time no see. If an inch per century is a molehill being made into a mountain, then the current inch per decade of sea level rise from warming is like turning a small snowbank into a glacier. Or like turning a fairly solid glacier into loose slush.
Kenneth Miller, chairman of the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Rutgers University, called the new report significant.
"This is a very important contribution because it firmly establishes that the rise in sea level in the 20th century is unprecedented for the recent geologic past," said Miller, who was not part of the research team. Miller said he recently advised New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie that the state needs to plan for a sea level rise of about 3 feet by the end of the century. Glad I don't own a beach house.
If you did, would you sell it to me cheap? My estimate is a foot by the end of the century based on the current 1 inch per decade (since 2003, it was a bit more before). Once temps stopped accelerating (1998) we would expect sea level rise to slow and it did. Now we will need to get back into accelerating temperature again, but that may take decades depending on the sun. So that leaves the current rise or maybe slower for a few decades. Possible acceleration after that, but who knows and who cares (mitigation is cheap)