Whistle blowing on Global Warming

[DREDger]

Ooops.

Wrong graph, will repost later.

I thought maybe I was just stupid not understanding.

[Kev367th]

No just me

Anyway might all be moot.

Love the way anything our Prime Minister Gordon 'Doom' Brown gets involved in invariably starts to turn into a big steaming pile of brown gravy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text?CMP=AFCYAH

[batch]

Please cite your source for this statement. 

that information is widely available.......... there are hundreds of measuring stations setup around the world

when you take their measurments and do some basic math (which I assume even a scientist can do) its very easy to see that in the past few years sea levels have on average declined globally (using the trend of the past 3 years data shows on average sea levels will decline 20 inches over the next 100 years) ........ when taken in a 10 year average theyve held pretty consistant with only a very small increase (by small increase the data shows if using the current 10 year trend the sea level will rise 1 inch over the next 100 years globally).......... prior to that there is very sparse data (selectively omitted I presume) on a global scale so no conclusion could possibly be reached (you cant take a handful of measurements worldwide and conclude anything on a global scale)

[MORAY37]

that information is widely available.......... there are hundreds of measuring stations setup around the world

when you take their measurments and do some basic math (which I assume even a scientist can do) its very easy to see that in the past few years sea levels have on average declined globally (using the trend of the past 3 years data shows on average sea levels will decline 20 inches over the next 100 years) ........ when taken in a 10 year average theyve held pretty consistant with only a very small increase (by small increase the data shows if using the current 10 year trend the sea level will rise 1 inch over the next 100 years globally).......... prior to that there is very sparse data (selectively omitted I presume) on a global scale so no conclusion could possibly be reached (you cant take a handful of measurements worldwide and conclude anything on a global scale)

Like this one?  Showing rise?

. Higher values are related to the occurrence of montmorillonite as the predominant clay mineral present. Review of tide gauge records indicates that gauges not affected by land subsidence or other local secular effects have been sinking relative to sea level since 1940 at rates averaging about 2.5 mm/yr, of which 0.6 mm/yr is ascribed to glacio-isostatic adjustment to unloading of North America resulting from melting of late Pleistocene glaciers, and about 0.9 mm/yr is ascribed to steric sea-level rise related to ocean warming.

 http://www.springerlink.com/content/l18584555k627686/

How about this one?

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/index.shtml

And all these trends...
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/northatlantictrends.html

No falling sea levels there.

Maybe it's the Pacific you mean that's falling....

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/northpacifictrends.html

Sea level is FALLING.... in Alaska only....oh yeah... Alaska is being raised up by geologic processes... so that's out.

Let's try the tropics for ya.....
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/northpacifictrends.html

Again.... rising.

Must be a large scale global phenomenon...This sea level fall....


Uhhh.... Nope.

Where did you get your facts from again?  That sea level is falling?  There isn't a single peer-reviewed paper stating this.

[batch]

so let me get this straight......... you want to cite an article from 1987 as proof that sea levels have risen in the last few years............

you would certainly never try to skew data to fulfill your agenda

DOH

I might suggest you try finding some recent GLOSS data........ or if nothing else look for the most comprehensive compilation available online which is at the University of Hawaii's site



EDIT: ROFL are you seriously going to keep editing that same comment until you have skewed the data enough? Thats your third edit already since I just posted. Come on man give it up....... youre proving the point exactly....... scientists will tend to lie to fit their agendas

I just checked your other links........ which btw still do not use CURRENT data...... and at best your links show an average global sea rise of 6 inches in the next 100 years..... you gotta work harder if youre going to skew data and still come out behind

[MORAY37]

so let me get this straight......... you want to cite an article from 1987 as proof that sea levels have risen in the last few years............

you would certainly never try to skew data to fulfill your agenda

DOH

I might suggest you try finding some recent GLOSS data........ or if nothing else look for the most comprehensive compilation available online which is at the University of Hawaii's site



EDIT: ROFL are you seriously going to keep editing that same comment until you have skewed the data enough? Thats your third edit already since I just posted. Come on man give it up....... youre proving the point exactly....... scientists will tend to lie to fit their agendas

I just checked your other links........ which btw still do not use CURRENT data...... and at best your links show an average global sea rise of 6 inches in the next 100 years..... you gotta work harder if youre going to skew data and still come out behind

Why wouldn't I?  Did it change?  How is using a data set in 1987 not ok?  I mean, all I hear is how people are skewing the data to fit climate change agendas.  This paper was prior to any "agenda" with climate change.....One would think that would lend more weight to a denialist such as yourself.  I thought the current data was flawed somehow?

An old mentor once said something that I still remember.  I was attempting to research citations for one of the first peer reviewed articles I published.  I was trying desperately to find papers with more recent dates on them.  Finally he said to me, "Things change, but they don't change so fast that good science in 1965 isn't good science in 2005."  It's not uncommon to have people cite Linnaeus' initial classification for many organisms.  Those being middle to late 1700's.

Back on topic, since you understand how GLOSS is working, you already realize that it is very susceptible to "shifting baselines syndrome".  For example, if you start out with a glass of water 50mL, and add water in 1ml increments for 30 repetitions, after 30 repetitions your baseline "norm" is 80 mL.  Now, if you take out 2 successive 5mL increments, a person like yourself will proclaim that that is proof we don't have a problem, as we've seen successive loss of water level, and the levels are declining.

When, in reality, the baselines shifted to become the "norm" from which you measured.

GLOSS in 2001, BTW.  



GLOSS data averaged and incorporated into long term station data

[Bodhi]

I personally feel that NOAA is about as corrupt as they come.  How is it not plausible that they are cooking data and colluding just like the Brits were.  I mean it's not like they stand to benefit from increased funding or anything.   

[MORAY37]

I personally feel that NOAA is about as corrupt as they come.  How is it not plausible that they are cooking data and colluding just like the Brits were.  I mean it's not like they stand to benefit from increased funding or anything.  

While I can't specifically agree or disagree, I will say the few NOAA people I've worked with were incredibly good scientists.  Incredibly good.

  NOAA's funding isn't tied to its' publications, either, Bodhi.  This is the case with some University structured systems, though thankfully fewer than it used to be.  I would suggest that you may simply cease to contribute, rather than blatantly slander an agency that encompasses such a large spectrum of work.  NOAA would not see an increase in its' funding, more likely, it would be directed by Congress to allot a certain amount or focus their energy towards that research during the budget oversight process.

As well, being a governmental agency, you have access to all raw data NOAA produces.  Feel free to check their data sets....it's public information.

[batch]

Why wouldn't I?  Did it change?  How is using a data set in 1987 not ok?  I mean, all I hear is how people are skewing the data to fit climate change agendas.  This paper was prior to any "agenda" with climate change.....One would think that would lend more weight to a denialist such as yourself.  I thought the current data was flawed somehow?

An old mentor once said something that I still remember.  I was attempting to research citations for one of the first peer reviewed articles I published.  I was trying desperately to find papers with more recent dates on them.  Finally he said to me, "Things change, but they don't change so fast that good science in 1965 isn't good science in 2005."  It's not uncommon to have people cite Linnaeus' initial classification for many organisms.  Those being middle to late 1700's.

Back on topic, since you understand how GLOSS is working, you already realize that it is very susceptible to "shifting baselines syndrome".  For example, if you start out with a glass of water 50mL, and add water in 1ml increments for 30 repetitions, after 30 repetitions your baseline "norm" is 80 mL.  Now, if you take out 2 successive 5mL increments, a person like yourself will proclaim that that is proof we don't have a problem, as we've seen successive loss of water level, and the levels are declining.

When, in reality, the baselines shifted to become the "norm" from which you measured.

GLOSS in 2001, BTW.  

You do realize how insanely ridiculous that sounds right? To disprove the fact that sea levels HAVE on average declined in RECENT years you cite a report written 22 years ago using data older than that........ and then ask why that data would NOT be valid in consideration of CURRENT sea level conditions.........

and then you go on to make my very point for me.......... its not my contention that sea levels will decline until the middle of the pacific is a desert....duh.........

simply that sea levels AS PROVEN by current data ARE declining ..... in your words until they reach their "norm" .... after which they may still decline some more or they may rise some more back and forth...... its natural......... this is something that has happened throughout world history and will continue to happen

I do enjoy the pretty picture you posted.......... nicely for those of us not challenged by an agenda .... the picture clearly shows a global balance of rise and decline

[bj229r]

I'll ask again---It is generally accepted the the Earth has increased ~ 3/4 of one degree Celsius in the last century or so....and that seemingly small amount is melting the polar ice caps and killing polar bears? Or is it that more serious warming is yet to come as predicted by collected data/ computer models?  In 20 years of this, I've never seen an answer to this very basic question...I'm truly interested in the answer

[batch]

I almost forgot to ask.............. being that you obviously had such a wise mentor </sarcasm>.......... should we then take all annual temperatures from 1965-present and simply ignore them when we are discussing how the sky is falling and the oceans are boiling? after all....... we know the science of global temperatures leading up to 1965....... thats clearly good enough..........

using this set of temperatures and other data leading up to 1965 (still good science) .... do you honestly believe you can make a case for global warming?

[batch]

I'll ask again---It is generally accepted the the Earth has increased ~ 3/4 of one degree Celsius in the last century or so....and that seemingly small amount is melting the polar ice caps and killing polar bears? Or is it that more serious warming is yet to come as predicted by collected data/ computer models?  In 20 years of this, I've never seen an answer to this very basic question...I'm truly interested in the answer

Let me just say that in every computer model ran......... they cannot successfully predict past (known) temperatures........... if they plug in all data up to 1970....... they dont even get close to any actual temperatures we reached 1970-2009....... the models dont work......... if they cant predict known temperature changes...... they cannot predict unknown changes

they do however look fancy and sound impressive when you need some of that free govt money

[MORAY37]

You do realize how insanely ridiculous that sounds right? To disprove the fact that sea levels HAVE on average declined in RECENT years you cite a report written 22 years ago using data older than that........ and then ask why that data would NOT be valid in consideration of CURRENT sea level conditions.........

and then you go on to make my very point for me.......... its not my contention that sea levels will decline until the middle of the pacific is a desert....duh.........

simply that sea levels AS PROVEN by current data ARE declining ..... in your words until they reach their "norm" .... after which they may still decline some more or they may rise some more back and forth...... its natural......... this is something that has happened throughout world history and will continue to happen

I do enjoy the pretty picture you posted.......... nicely for those of us not challenged by an agenda .... the picture clearly shows a global balance of rise and decline

Why do I continually try to have debates with troglodytes?  It's nothing personal, relax.  I'm sorry if I offend you with actual citations by people that do the real work.  I've yet to see a single one by you.... only derision. I guess it's much easier to attack an individual than to actually look into your facts.

Instead of throwing mud, something I have not done to you, throw some real data back.  I never said I was a climate scientist.... convince me.  Gravity is, after all, just a theory. You still have a chance to disprove it.

[MORAY37]

You do realize how insanely ridiculous that sounds right? To disprove the fact that sea levels HAVE on average declined in RECENT years you cite a report written 22 years ago using data older than that........ and then ask why that data would NOT be valid in consideration of CURRENT sea level conditions.........

The old report establishes a known or base sea level rise. (Pre-Global Warming Hysteria/ Denialism.)

The 5 other sources on the page establish up-to-date station readings, recognizing a current relationship to the old work, through which any underlying trend can be established.

It's really not hard to follow along, if you tried, without preconception.  You seemed to be a little educated until the berating began.

[MORAY37]

Let me just say that in every computer model ran......... they cannot successfully predict past (known) temperatures........... if they plug in all data up to 1970....... they dont even get close to any actual temperatures we reached 1970-2009....... the models dont work......... if they cant predict known temperature changes...... they cannot predict unknown changes

they do however look fancy and sound impressive when you need some of that free govt money

Funny.  This graph is a three run GCM (Global Climate Model) with the observed real-world readings in red. (Meaning it was run three times and mated with observed measurements)  It seems pretty close.