Frank Lansner’s first graph surprised me. It’s well known and often quoted that sea levels have been rising by 2-3mm a year every year for the last 20 years. But it’s not well known that the original raw satellite data doesn’t show that at all.
What astonished me was the sea levels first recorded by the Topex Poseidon satellite array showed virtually no rise at all from 1993-2001. Surely not, I thought. I asked sea-level expert Nils Axel-Morner, and he confirmed: “Yes, it is as bad as that.” Now, given that Envisat (the European satellite) showed no rise from 2003-2011 (until it was adjusted) that means we have almost 20 years of raw satellite data showing very little rise.
We thought satellites would finally give us a definitive answer on sea levels. Instead, like the tide gauges, and every other tool available to mankind, apparently satellites systematically underestimate the rising trends. And despite the speed of light being quite quick and all, it can take years for the data to finally arrive. Sometimes 4 or 5 (or 10 years) after the measurement was made scientists “discover” that it was wrong.
Now of course, any one of these adjustments could be for very legitimate reasons and give us results closer to the truth. But the adjustments always bring data closer to the modeled trend. It’s decidedly non-random. Either there is a God who thinks teasing climate scientists is spiffy, or else there is something fishy going on, and some investigative journalists need to ask some investigative questions. Is that sea-level rise due to global warming or is it due to global adjustments?
— Jo
————————————————————————————————————-
Guest Post by Frank Lansner
Edited by Jo Nova
Sea levels – the raw data is always adjusted upwards
The raw data on sea levels is repeatedly adjusted “up”
Fig 1 The data for recent years has gone through significant changes. In Morner 2004 the raw satellite data for sea level rise was shown with the original slope (the grey line with dots named “Topex/Poseidon as of 2001” above).
The data was shown in the Morner 2004 peer reviewed article. It does seem that Morner was simply presenting data on sea levels as they were known at the time. In addition, Holgate’s data from 2006-7 also seems to show a similar flat trend after 1994.
Holgate’s flat sea level graph ends in 2004 – when Envisat starts out with yet another dataset showing flat trend. The Envisat data is stitched so that 2004-6 overlaps with the satellite data. (But it could have been aligned with the original raw data of Topex/Poseidon, so that Envisat continues where Holgate 2007 ended.)
Sea Levels
Fig 2.The original red graph is from the IPCC AR4 dataset (Church and White 2006). Other datasets for sea level rise have been added to show the trends as they were reported at the time with the year each one was released.
Something happened to the sea level data from satellites around 2004-2005 it seems, because in 2005 Morner points out that the satellite data has been changed significantly. The trends don’t look like they did before 2004.
Sea level trends are trending up
Fig 3 The changes in sea level on a century scale still had a problem around 2006-7: Sea level data still did not support the global warming argument.
Even the results of Jevrejeva 2006 are a problem for the theory of man-made global warming. The annual sea level rise in the 1990’s were equal to the annual sea level rise of the 1940’s. That would suggest same global temperature trends for the two periods. That does not support the alarm over global warming.
Finally in 2009 Vermeer and Rahmstorf produced a dataset for sea level rise that actually suggested that annual sea level rise in the 1990’s exceeded the 1940’s rate and thus suggested warming was increasing faster now than it was in the 1940’s. This was the first time that a dataset for sea-level rise was produced that actually supported the global warming argument.
Meanwhile, sea level data from Envisat keeps coming in, and it seems that the new project staff have no idea they have to produce global warming adapted data:
The European Satellite also needed an upwards “correction” (in red)
Fig 4. As always there is some kind of adjustment making data a little more GW friendly, but still, the adjusted version of Envisat shows a tiny slope of around 6-7 cm per century… (the unadjusted showed 3 cm per century.)
European Satellites need upward corrections too
Sea levels recorded by ENVISAT were dramatically corrected in early 2012.
Fig 5: The European Envisat data before (in black) and after (in red)
After the Envisat stopped transmitting, the whole series was changed dramatically. In addition, the full length of the data beginning in 2002 is now shown. It appears that Envisat data from 2002-4 shows a fall in sea level, but this dive was not shown until now when the new stronger increase in sea level dominates the picture.
Note from Jo: The excuses for the upwards adjustments stretch credulity. One of the sea-level adjustments that increases the trend is a “correction” for rising land (globally) – Seriously: 10% of recorded sea level rise is conmpensation for the land apparently rising too. In any case, even if sea-levels are rising still (could be), they started rising long before we started using coal to produce electricity, see It wasn’t CO2: Global sea levels started rising before 1800. And in the case of Australia, Australian sea level rises exaggerated by 8 fold (or maybe ten) .
REFERENCES
Gornitz V, Lebedeff S. 1987. Global sea-level changes during the past century. In Sea-level Fluctuation and Coastal Evolution, Nummedal D, Pilkey OH, Howard JD (eds). The Society for Sedimentary Geology: Tulsa, Oklahoma; 316, (SEPM Special Publication No.41).(1987) [Data]
IPCC Assessment Report 4, Working Group I, Chapter 9. [pdf]
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/PastRecords.pdf
Stoddart, D.R. and Reed, D.J. (1990) Sea-level rise as a global geomorphic issue, Progress in Physical Geography December 1990 14: 441-445, doi:10.1177/030913339001400401 [PDF]
Morner. N.A. Estimating future sea level changes from past records, Global and Planetary Change 40 (2004) 49–54 doi:10.1016/S0921-8181(03)00097-3 [PDF]
Holgate 2006 (poster version): [PDF]
Holgate, S.J. 2007. On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century. Geophysical Research Letters 34: 10.1029/2006GL028492 GRL: [PDF]
Morner N.A.: Memorandum by Professor Nils-Axel Mörner, Head of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden President, (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, Leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12we18.htm
Jevrejeva, S., Grinsted, A., Moore, J. C., and Holgate, S. (2006) Nonlinear trends and multiyear cycles in sea level records, J. Geophys. Res., 111, C09012, doi:10.1029/2005JC003229. [Source] [PDF]
Church, J.A. and White, N.J. 2006. A 20th-century acceleration in global sea-level rise. Geophysical Research Letters 33: 10.1029/2005GL024826. [eea.europa.eu]
Vermeer, M., and S. Rahmstorf, 2009. Global sea level linked to global temperature. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 106:6. PNAS (PDF)
Steven Goddard on Envisat:[real-science.com]
Watts/Goddard on Envisat: [WattsUpWithThat-April-2012]
Frank Lansner writes HideTheDecline, from Denmark.
“the original raw satellite data doesn’t show that at all”
You know what doesn’t show that at all? Going to the beach. Your own eyes! There’s been no sea level rise. My wuwt comment:
I’ve been going to this tide-pooled rocky beach for ~40 years.
As a little tike I would name the big rocks (as Farm, Minor & “Major League Rock” etc), and from shore throw rocks at them. With my own eyes: the sea level has not changed. Further, recently I was there at a low tide of minus 0.5 and went out to Major rock. There was a few spotty inches of water between Minor & Major rocks.
This is EXACTLY as it was 40 years ago. Only when the tide was lower than minus 1.0 would there be no water at all between Minor & Major. I reported this to my scientist (biochem) “trust the experts” brother. He said “ok, that is some anecdotal evidence.” Me: “ANECDOTAL?!! It’s me! And you see the same thing.” Him: “Anecdotal in that it’s not scientific, or… systematic.” In a bit, he said “Those [huge] rocks have moved.” I took this as sarcastic, saying “Haha. Yeah. Another thing I hear is that the ‘land has risen.’”
Maybe the sea has risen everywhere else, while it’s just at Big Sur that it remains the same.
20
The values of the models are the right ones, of course, we live in the (climate) matrix. 😀
30
Are these guys scientists or accountants,observed scientific data only needs adjustment to hide something ,err the truth perhaps.Telling the truth could create some much needed credibility for these morons.I have LIVED WORKED and PLAYED in the OCEAN and the Sea Level is pretty much the same as it was 50 years ago.Climate Change is Natural and CO2 is Life
30
And then they say that the sceptics are involved in stupid conspiracy theories. Well things that these and other in the same domain sure feed thougts like that. But it is not really a conspiracy, everything is done openly!
00
OT. . .
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/penalties_apply/
“Shops and restaurants could face fines up to $1.1 million if waiters or sales staff wrongly blame the carbon tax for price rises or exaggerate the impact.”
00
In the meantime, the 1841 tide mark at Port Arthur is still at sea level. Perhaps a warmist’s bathtub has deeper water at one end, but Mother Nature’s big bathtub stubbornly resists the sea level BS.
00
And how much are they fined if they CORRECTLY blame the carbon tax for price rises?
00
Oh, it is purely coincidence that the adjusted sea levels show rises when the raw data does not.
Quite coincidentally, there have been legitimate multiple adjustments that the NASA Gisstemp data set has undergone over the years to correct the previous exaggerated warming trend from around 1910 to 1940, and correct the error made by some that warming trends ceased around the turn of this century. It is only under the cool and objective leadership of Prof James Hansen that the real truth has emerged. Following the lead of this technical brilliance the British have followed similar techniques in their recently launched HADCRUT4 temperature set. Never again will the experts at NASA have to hide the inferior and erroneous British data.
Quite coincidentally, we now know from the brilliance of Prof Micheal Mann, that twentieth century temperature rises were unprecedented, correcting previous erroneous beliefs that they were not.
Quite coincidentally,we now know that the missing heat to account for the lack of recent warming, is in the deep oceans. It is only now a matter of measuring it, and then applying high-level analytical techniques to the results to get the real picture.
20
Coastcare and Rivercare, anyone who lives by a river or the ocean have your insurance premiums risen, or council rates been adjusted in the last few years, because of rising sea levels or a risk of flood that may or may not occur.
One begins to wonder how easy it is to manipulate with lies,and what other subjects in society are manipulated to bring about financial benefit to a stakeholder.
For all the millions spent on water tasks, how much extra water do we have?
00
Jo -OT but you might want to take a look at this attack on your site:
http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/05/accusations-that-climate-science-is-money-driven-reveal-ignorance-of-how-science-is-done/
00
As a school football coach I often had to try and count the players as they ran a lap of the oval, always changing their positions relative to each other. Some wag would often say “count their legs and divide by two”. Measuring sea level must be like trying to count the kids by counting their fingers and thumbs through a telescope two kilometres away while riding a merry-go-round. So many moving variables. The motion of the water, the land, the satellite, Earth itself through space, the doppler effect?
00
I have often pondered this question of sea level rise. Regardless of all the statistical manipulation, at the end of the day there must be some clear physical effect. Else why should we worry? It is only the physical manifestation that can validate the trends. So, what IS the anecdotal evidence? Who has actually seen anything significant in their neck of the woods for the past 50-75 years? At 3mm/yr, one would see a rise of 210mm over 70 years, which is some 20cm, hardly a trifling amount. Has anyone created a website where people can report their own experiences of sea level rise or fall? I can’t speak for anyone else, but I certainly haven’t seen that on the east coast of Australia…
00
O.T. [but only slightly as we are dealing with BS]
The Australian newspaper got stuck into ABC’s Media Watch and the Canberra Times in an article today over the BS/misinformation spread concerning ANU staff receiving alleged death threats in emails.
The emails through FOI were found to be abuse and not death threats and
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-11/anu-releases-abusive-emails-sent-to-climate-scientists/4005132?section=act
http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com.au/
00
.
Hi Graeme
You may find the following news item from the end of last year interesting.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-28/story-4/3750362
Basically it’s about some American whaling ships that went aground at Bunbury, WA, in the 1840’s. It would be safe to assume the wrecks were at or near sea level at the time, and pretty-much on the sea shore. Today they are located several hundred metres from the sea shore, and under five metres of sand beneath a car park.
I can’t help but wonder how an alleged 3mm a year rise can even be detected when entire coastlines can shift in this manner in what is the geologically short time of around 150 years.
00
Delusion – the act of deluding; a misleading of the mind; false impression or belief; illusion; error or mistake proceeding from false views; the state of being deluded or misled.
Those who try to rule over us seem to be suffering from it!
http://climatecommission.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/NSW-report_final_web.pdf
01
The San Francisco tide gauge has been in operation since 1854, and for the 20th century showed an increase of eight inches (2mm/yr). In fact, since 1854 the yearly rate of increase has been about 2mm/year. In other words, the rate of increase pre and post the advent of human driven global warming (1950) has been the same. I’ve lived on the Northern California coast off and on since 1949, and I can confirm there has been no apparent change in sea level in this area in all that time. The boiler from the wreck of the Sea Foam near the Point Arena wharf still looks the same at various tides as it did in 1949. The low areas where creeks come down to the ocean still show the same channels; new inlets have not been formed as would be expected from a significantly rising sea. The landmark “Bowling Ball Beach” still looks exactly like its photographs going back over 70 years. Ancient boat ramps and harbor piers are still in use in the same way they were when built. And yet San Francisco newspapers and TV news programs continually parade charts and animations showing San Francisco Bay threatened by sea level increase of six feet by 2100 (in some presentations, by 2050). Something is going to have to happen really fast, because at the current rate it’s going to come up five feet short.
01
“Instead, like the tide gauges, and every other tool available to mankind, apparently satellites systematically underestimate the rising trends.”
This is only true of recent instruments. Older thermometers, etc., vastly overestimated temperatures, sea levels, etc. That is why recent temperatures have to be adjusted upwards, and older ones have to be adjusted downwards.
I used to go to Hallets Cove beach when I was a boy. Recently I saw a photograph of the beach. From the photo, it looks just the same as it did more than fifty years ago. I thought it would have been drowned by now.
10
OT. . .
An hour long interview with Monckton has just recently been posted on YouTube.
Hes currently in the US for the Heartland Institute conference.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN7mQ1u230I
00
[…] Man-made sea-level rises are due to global adjustments […]
00
.
Slightly O/T but many here have speculated on what will happen to all this climate madness once the money runs out.
Well we’re about to find out.
Gina Rinehart’s Roy Hill Project was just granted permission to bring in 1,700 foreign workers. One can only presume BHPB and Rio will have their similar applications in by the middle of next week, on the grounds of “unfair competition”.
So within eighteen months the only benefit Australians will derive from the mining boom will be in royalties, and they will all have to go to pay for increased welfare expenditure. Where will the billions for “climate change” money come from then?
And the hell of it is, in the long run, it will cost Rinehart money – BIG time.
She’s just too greedy to realise it.
00
25 May: ABC: David Marchese: Look beyond coal: climate activist
A visiting climate change activist is urging young Australians in the Upper Hunter to think beyond coal when discussing the future of the region.
Anna Rose is the co-founder of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition and is touring parts of regional Australia to talk about climate change with young people…
Anna Rose is the co-founder of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition and is touring parts of regional Australia to talk about climate change with young people…
Ms Rose says while she understands coal is an important industry for the Hunter, it comes at a cost.
“There’s a lot of money in coal in the short term but the cost of continuing Australia’s coal expansion is that we’re sacrificing the future of young Australians,” she said.
“What are the consequences for young Australians, when we’re creating more climate change from digging up and exporting more coal?”
Anna Rose featured in the ABC Television program I Can Change Your Mind About Climate last month, travelling around the world with former Liberal Senator Nick Minchin discussing human involvement in climate change….
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-25/climate-youth/4032838/?site=newcastle
and China will continue to build new coal-fired power plants every week using aussie coal, Anna. makes a lot of sense!
00
“serious controversy”!
(AUDIO)25 May: ABC Rural: Keiren McLeonard: Food on Friday – terroir, climate change and growing grapes
John Gladstones – even if you don’t recognise the name, you’ll know at least one of his achievements. He’s largely credited with establishing the Margaret River Wine region.
His distinguished career also includes authoring the 1992 book Viticulture and the Environment, which became a must read for many in Australia’s wine industry.
But John Galdstones(sic) most recent publication Wine Terroir and Climate Change has caused serious controversy.
Not only does it attempt to re-define terroir, the concept matching vines to the ideal soil and climate type to allow best expression of flavour. He also seriously questions climate change projections, and argues against its anthropogenic nature.
It’s a move that’s put one of the statesman on Australian wine at odds with the vast majority of his peers and the industry as a whole which is at the more progressive end of climate change adaptation.
John Gladstones, author of Wine, Terroir and Climate Change, WA; Professor Snow Barlow, Associate Dean, School of Land and Environment, Melbourne University, Vic
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/telegraph/content/2012/s3511195.htm
Snow is not fond of sceptics:
2011: Snow Barlow, PIARN Convenor: climate sceptics and informed debate
An evitable consequence of this debate appears to be unsubstantiated blogs covering both the ‘myths’ of anthropogenic climate change and potential other sources of greenhouse gases and warming…
However I thought it may be useful PIARN members to be aware of some credible websites containing referenced answers to frequently asked questions. We have provided some links to these websites below for your information and use. They vary in complexity and ease of navigation, but all are well researched and referenced…
If you know of more useful websites please let PIARN know and we’ll add them to this list.
•Climate change: a guide for the perplexed New Scientist magazine
•Skeptical Science – ‘Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism’
•Facts and fiction about climate change The Royal Society UK
•Frequently Asked Questions from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report
http://piarn.org.au/news/2011/aug/28/snow-barlow-climate-sceptics-and-informed-debate
00
some good news:
25 May: UK Press Association: Butterfly boosted by climate change
A once rare butterfly is becoming a common sight in the English countryside after capitalising on climate change, research has shown.
The brown argus was scarce in the 1980s and mainly confined to the chalk downs of southern England.
Since then, warmer conditions have allowed the butterfly’s caterpillars to change their diet, providing them with a bigger choice of habitat. As a result the brown argus has rapidly expanded its range, spreading northwards by around 50 miles in the last 20 years.
The attractive brown and orange butterflies are now widespread in much of southern England…
The study, reported in the journal Science, shows how warming temperatures allowed the brown argus to alter its diet…
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jCtXX3o3ct4frYKE5CcQrlKG3Mew?docId=N0306301337859459280A
00
some bad news, but at least Louise considers him “controversial”:
25 May: Western Advocate: Louise Eddy: Climate change expert presents inaugural awards
Controversial climate change expert Professor Tim Flannery will take the podium today at the local centre that bears his name.
He will not only present Skillset’s first sustainability awards, the Skillset Sustainability Award and Skillset Sustainability Partnership Awards to two Central West businesses, he will also be the keynote speaker at Skillset’s annual Training Award ceremony.
CEO Skillset Ben Bardon said staff at the Flannery Centre are excited and honoured that a scientist of international renown will be presenting Skillset’s inaugural sustainability awards…
http://www.westernadvocate.com.au/news/local/news/general/climate-change-expert-presents-inaugural-awards/2567851.aspx
00
The real problem with these adjustments isn’t whether they are justified or not, they generally are. The real problem is adjustments give free rein to Confirmation Bias. I know from investigating the Time of Observation Bias in the surface land temperature record. That an adjustment is certainly required, but the size of the adjustment is largely guesswork. Enter confirmation bias. Then there are effects that need adjustments but don’t get one, because they would introduce the ‘wrong’ trend and therefore ‘can’t be significant’.
In most branches of science, if the data isn’t good enough, it is chucked, and the scientists start again. Unfortunately we can’t go back and remeasure past climate. But at minimum, we should ensure raw data is always retained. If the raw data isn’t available then the adjusted data derived from it, should be rejected.
00
I put it all down to seasonal adjustment.
Last summer was normal but seasonally adjusted it was a heatwave.
Last year sea level rose 2mm but seasonally adjusted it rose 1 meter.
00
Yep think the “like” function might not be working.My post @26 got 16 likes and one disliked within 30 secs of being posted.
Cheers
rukidding
00
“It’s a hard conversation to have but the cost of not acting on climate change is much greater than the cost of acting.”
I love that one, meaning:-
We haven’t a clue what the cost’ll be, either way, so just keep giving.
Or
It’ll never be enough to appease the Climate Gods, so just keep on giving.
What’s the word for that tired old lie ?
Argumentum add …. ?
00
Sillyfilly as strident as I was… I apologise for not addressing you specifically in post 31. I didn’t realise that the problems on this site meant that comments were not imbedding correctly.
00
Worth asking the question as to what effect underwater phenomena like earthquakes and tsunamis have on sea-level. And who has proven whether it is the water level changing or the earth has moved! It appears to move for millions every day!
Seriously though, where are the underwater studies which analyse the ‘basin’ volume created by land and sea-beds? Does this affect Anthropogenic Global Warming to quote the greenwash brainwash shamanism?
00
What needs to be explained by the satellite data processing people is why the tide gauge data of many sites continue at low rates of rise while the satellite data are showing rates of sea level rise about twice the tide gauge data. In view of so many “adjustments,” such a discrepancy needs a valid explanation and believable reason, otherwise the satellite data becomes quite suspect.
00
.
No – wrong again.
Interesting.
00
.
Fascinating
00
.
Enough.
This is more than my Shiraz-enhanced brain can cope with.
This should be comment #41 but Lord alone knows where it will end up.
Jo and helpers “Houston – we have a problem”.
00
Stuff climate arguments for a while you lot.
We got a share of the SKA!
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/ska-super-telescope-to-be-built-in-australia-south-africa/story-fn3dxiwe-1226367458337
Something that i think we can all celebrate Wot!
00
“….some investigative journalists need to ask some investigative questions.”
Thanks for the belly-laugh this morning.
00
I have wondered for years why it has been simplistically assumed that sea level rise would result solely from an increase in the volume of ocean water, to the exclusion of other geologic metrics. We know that mountain ranges are dynamic — rising in some cases and continually eroding in others. Land masses are not static. Plate tectonics are a constant factor. Sea beds rise in some areas and fall in others. Undersea volcanic activity is enormous. Land masses sink as the weight of the overlying ice increases and vice verse. In some areas seabed trenches are forming and deepening while elsewhere mountain ranges are being pushed up. This is significant considering that only 30% of the planet is above sea level.
10
If you go to the other side of the world, Finland, you will find that the sea level has gone down. I guess it is not the only place as even the UK seems to be adjusting so that some bits sink and other bits (Scotland) rise up. As some go up and some go down the net result on sea levels is probably not much.
10
I thought the Harry Potter franchise was over, but the magic lives on…
Order of the Facetious Fellows
00
Karl Popper – The Problem of Induction [1953,1974]
00
If the expanding Earth theory is correct then perhaps sea levels should in fact be falling.
http://eearthk.com/Expand.html
00
If the expanding Earth theory is correct, we would easily be able to measure it:
GPS surveying equipment can achieve vertical accuracy of 3 cm. This could easily detect a 2 in diameter/year increase in one or two years.
Since (survey-equipment) horizontal GPS measurements are accurate to 1cm and have been done all over the Earth for many years, the expansion of the Earth’s circumference by 6 inchs/year would also be easily detectable in a single year.
Laser ranging of the Moon (Apollo retroflector arrays left on the Moon) is accurate to 3 cm.
Currently, gravity measurements with portable meters are accurate to ~ 2×10^-9 g, which corresponds to an altitude change of 6 cm. This would also detect an expansion of the Earth at the hypothesized rate in 3 to 4 years. Non-portable laboratory instruments can be ~ 100 times more sensitive.
10
Bark beetles have nuked around 30 million acres of softwood forests in north america incl Canada. Why? Due to AGW the NA & Canadian winters are no longer severe enough to kill 99% of the beetles, they overwinter successfully and then start killing more trees in the spring.
Of course, dead trees decompose and emit GHGs in doing so.
Nothing alarmist here, just fact, actual happenings. AGW is real.
In Australia the bush fires just get bigger and bigger and hotter and now should be described as firestorms that can kill from half a kilometre away. Another documented fact.
11
Yep, just like they did in 1961-1966.
And, the new growth that replaces them absorbs GHGs.
So far, we agree.
Climate Change is real (and always has been) — AGW is an unproven (bordering on falsified) hypothesis.
Don’t know about Australia, but fires in the Western US are also getting more destructive. They still haven’t reached even 10% of the distruction caused by the Big Blow-Up in 1910, however, which burned 3 million acres in two days.
Give it up, Maxine: Your concept of “evidence” is absurd.
01
fantasy meets reality, or it’s all over for CAGW:
25 May: Deutsche Welle: Nathan Witkop: Bonn climate talks end in squabbling
Bickering over procedural issues tied up much of the two weeks of UN climate talks that ended in Bonn on Friday, the first time negotiators met since last year’s summit in Durban.
“The window of opportunity is very slowly closing down on us,” said conference chairwoman Sandea de Wet towards the end of the session, as delegates struggled to agree on a chair for an important new working group known as the Adhoc Durban Platform…
***”The spirit of collective action was broken in Bonn,” said the European Union’s main negotiator Artur Runge Metzge…
Separately, the International Energy Agency reported on Thursday that the world is increasing its dependence on carbon-intensive energy. In a report, it said emissions from fossil fuels reached a new record of 31.6 billion tons last year, up 3.6%…
http://www.dw.de/dw/article/0,,15978278,00.html
26 May: Reuters: Nina Chestney: Deadlock on climate talks could sink global deal
Hopes are fading that climate talks in Qatar late this year will make even modest progress towards getting a new globally binding climate deal signed by 2015, as preliminary negotiations in Germany this week have left much work to be done…
“(We know) trade talks collapsed in Doha. Are we setting the stage for the collapse of climate negotiations?” said Mithika Mwenda, co-ordinator for campaign group the Pan-African Climate Justice Alliance.
“This is like the Titanic, where both developing countries and industrialized countries will sink.”…
“I think it would be unrealistic to think there will be major breakthroughs very soon,” the IEA’s chief economist Fatih Birol said on Thursday, referring to the climate talks.
“Climate change is sliding down in the international policy agenda, which is definitely a worrying trend.”…
Expectations for international climate talks in general have faded since a summit in Copenhagen in 2009 failed to deliver a globally binding deal…
http://www.lfpress.com/comment/2012/05/25/19800076.html
Mwenda should give thanx, and the final excerpt should have said “faded since Climategate in 2009”.
00
[…] Man-made sea-level rises are due to global adjustments […]
00
Evening all.
Getting back to the thread, for a change.
It is classic Post-Modernism. If the truth doesn’t match the theory, then the truth must be wrong. Climate models being a point in question, amongst others.
The “theory”, of course, is politically motivated and financed. (Heavily.)
I’m surprised someone hasn’t written a skit about this. Perhaps we should bring it to the keen attention to those sharp social commentators, Clarke and Dawe…
Sorry, I forgot. They’re paid for, and sold out, to the ABC. Which, in itself, is a case in point.
Cheers,
Speedy.
00
Regarding error bars: large error bars in the past are shown with the median values, as are the modern ones. However, what it looks like is that median values correcting large error bars are, in effect, a type of long-term smoothing, thereby reducing the highs and lows that actually occurred. Comparisons with the present, therefore, look incorrect when stating whether today was warmer or cooler than back then.
We need a statistician to come in here: is it possible that all we can say about the past record is that the highs were HIGHER than the median, and LOWER than median, depending on the trend? Is it more appropriate to say that the error bars should be considered at the 90% of the bar, i.e. the range, not the value?
Same for sea-level here: we stick with the median value for comparison, but what would happen to today’s readings if we were to push a 100 year rolling function onto it? (not that we could, for 100 years)?
If what I suspect is correct, we’ve been lead down the garden path on historical temperatures and sea-levels.
Hope this gets a response. It goes to the heart of the matter.
00
Envisat ASAR
Envisat drifting phase
New
At the end of October 2010, the orbit of the Envisat satellite was lowered by 17 km, putting it into a new “drifting phase” or “Extended Mission” orbit with a 30-day repeat cycle. In this new orbit, they will not be doing any orbit adjustments so the satellite will start to drift. At the ESA Living Planet Symposium of June-July 2010, they announced that they had modified the plan for the “drifting phase” orbit of Envisat to have the “fixed nodes” of the orbit at 38 degrees N on the descending tracks and 38 degrees S on the ascending tracks instead of the previous plan to have them both at the equator. This means that we should get good baselines within about 4-6 degrees of latitude from those two fixed nodes. At other locations, the baselines will increase rapidly with time but 30-day or 60-day interferograms will probably be OK.
Envisat is now in the new orbit and functioned completely from November 2010 to April 2012. ESA was accepting new acquisition requests. Of course, all of the new “drifting phase” tracks are completely different and can’t be used with any old data from the original phase. It is like starting a new mission. Unfortunately, ESA lost contact with Envisat on 8 April 2012.
http://roipac.org/Envisat
00
I know that this is not related to the topic at hand, but a really good point is made here, when Speedy mentions it. While the (whole) debate is about the Science, other areas are also important, and, correctly utilised, these are also a way to tear down this CAGW religious meme.
Speedy mentions at Comment 58 that there is a need to debate people using the Maths that are inherent in all this debate, especially about replacing what is the largest producer of these CO2 emissions, coal fired power generation.
Those Maths deal in ares that those in favour of replacing them have no concept of.
The (general) thinking from the average man in the street is that one large scale Solar or Wind Plant replaces one large scale coal fired power plant, virtually on an equal basis for the power produced for consumption.
Explaining that is difficult and therein lies my problem.
When I try to explain it, the scale is such that what I do say just sounds so unbelievable, like taking 132 Solar plants just to replace the one plant, say, Bayswater, and that is seen at this Comment at Joanne’s site here at this link.
When people see that, it’s difficult to wrap your head around.
Many’s the time I have used a similar argument to explain it, and as soon as you mention the one thing, the scale of the money involved, and I ask the other side to address that, then, at that point, I am completely ignored. They vanish. Phhht! Gone.
As soon as I ask them to address that problem, (especially the costings) that other side then either vanish, or change the subject. It’s so obvious.
A common point they use when addressing the Maths behind the money especially is the point that if we construct more of them, then the price will fall.
In more than four years now of looking at this, the costs have not fallen. They have in fact risen, and in some cases risen considerably, so I just cannot believe that they will come down, and having said that, if, and that’s a huge if, they do come down, then for an equality basis, they would need to come down, not by a small amount, but by a factor of between 6 and 10, so in other words a Plant that currently costs $1.45 Billion would need to come down to $145 Million, and that will never happen, and even then, that will make them only part competitive, because there are other factors at play at every turn. These renewable plants have a life of (barely) 25 years at the absolute outside, and a large scale coal fired plant regularly have a life span of 50 years (and more), so either way, whatever comparison you make, you then need to double it.
Then on top of that, you need to take into account the fact that even to replace them, you would need to compensate the coal fired plant for the legal contractual agreement to supply power that is agreed upon when the plant started operation.
There are so many factors involved in the Maths part alone that people just cannot understand, (or, more importantly, will not) so any argument I attempt to engage in is more often than not totally ignored, especially when I mention the money.
One of the most startling examples for the argument that prices are not coming down is the Cape Wind Project, an Offshore Wind project proposed for Nantucket Sound, in Massachusetts. Originally proposed before the turn of the Century, it was costed at proposal at $550 Million. While wind technology has gotten so much better in the time since then, this plant, still as yet not constructed, has gone through at least 4 cost changes, and is now mooted to cost $2.5 Billion, increasing by a factor of almost 5.
Tony.
00
Shrinking Arctic ice may cause mercury poisoning
http://www.desmogblog.com/shrinking-arctic-ice-may-cause-mercury-poisoning
Look at the picture of Arctic ice in 1980 and the one in 2012. Then remember the ice is very thin—a LOT of ice has gone!
00
So, which ever way you cut it, I think we can say with considerable certainty…
The global sea level rise is caused by man made hot air!
00
Hi Jo, thankyou very much for showing this to your fantastic audience, and thanks all for reading and commenting.
Jo, I think your intro is superbe, I like this paragraph:
”
Now of course, any one of these adjustments could be for very legitimate reasons and give us results closer to the truth. But the adjustments always bring data closer to the modeled trend. It’s decidedly non-random. Either there is a God who thinks teasing climate scientists is spiffy, or else there is something fishy going on, and some investigative journalists need to ask some investigative questions. Is that sea-level rise due to global warming or is it due to global adjustments?
”
Yes, this is the issue. we dont have data acces etc. in way that we can prove which data in the climate science area is fraud and which is not. We only have the option to use our common sence:
For all important areas of the climate science, massive changes of climate data are needed to achieve compliance with global warming hypothesis.
Is it statistically possible that all kinds of measurements done by all kinds of people with all kinds of equipment simply all fails in the same direction?
Or is it in fact impossible?
A univesal common “error trend” supporting pretty much same temperatures around 1930-40 as today?
00
I have some background in measurement and I just plain can’t swallow that mean sea level can be measured with (apparently) one millimeter accuracy. Too many things need to be “taken into account”, meaning adjusted for.
Am I the only one bothered by this?
00
PS: It’s worse than I thought. That was a reply to MV at post 60.
00
Maxine,
if you look at the Guardian link – Lars P #79 – you will see that of the top 10 emitters only 2 intend cutting emissions as per Kyoto part 2. Add in the next 10 and there are another 4 believers in a future Kyoto (Australia included).
Add up the figures (if you can) and it means that over 70% of current emissions are not going to sign up for future reductions. The “believers” add up to less than 10% of current emissions.
Even a true believer in “CO2 eats the planet” should realise that the carbon tax idea is -to avoid the moderators, arrange the words ‘stick’, ‘pointed’, ‘uphill’, ‘pushing’ etc. into a well known phrase.
00
We seem to be in a “Millerite” moment. You will recall that William Miller predicted the end of the world between Mar 1843 and Mar 1844. It caused considerable excitement in the USA and Canada, and even some in the UK and Australia.
When March 1844 was over, a new date of April the 18 was announced. When that went by many stopped believing, but for remaining believers a new date of Oct 22, 1844 was predicted. When that date went by, there were still enough believers to form 3 sects (one of which morphed into the Jehovah’s Witnesses). Needless to say, the further dates of 1874 and 1914 also passed unfulfilled. Yet some still believed!
So it is with the believers that CO2 causes Global Warming, Global Cooling, Climate Change, Climate Disruption etc. No evidence will get through to them.
01
[…] http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/man-made-sea-level-rises-are-due-to-global-adjustments/#more-21413 […]
00
Thank you, Frank.
This is a very important topic. For waristas, if the air and sea don’t heat up, claim that oceans are rising. It’s desperate last resort stuff that needs to be snuffed.
There is a list on Envisat corrections at
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/en/calval/systematic-calval/validation-reports/envisat-gdr-c/index.html
It’s slow going. I’ve read only a few. The point is, if one disbelieves the explanation, what can one do about it? Frustrating.
Can anyone point to a “consensus view” that the adjustment are acceptable? There are counter views above, but they are hard to draw together into a few simple statements.
I’m further puzzled that the measurment accuracy of the satellite reference network is far greater than the claimed resolution of Envisat, Topex & Jason data, seeWu et al
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL047450.shtml
Abstract: The International Terrestrial Reference Frame (ITRF) is a fundamental datum for high-precision orbit tracking, navigation, and global change monitoring. Accurately realizing and maintaining ITRF origin at the mean Earth system center of mass (CM) is critical to surface and spacecraft based geodetic measurements including those of sea level rise and its sources. Although ITRF combines data from satellite laser ranging (SLR), Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI), Global Positioning System (GPS), and Doppler Orbitography and Radiopositioning Integrated by Satellite (DORIS), its origin is currently realized by the single technique of SLR. Consequently, it is difficult to independently evaluate the origin accuracy. Also, whether the solid Earth is expanding or shrinking has attracted persistent attention. The expansion rate, if any, has not been accurately determined before, due to insufficient data coverage on the Earth’s surface and the presence of other geophysical processes. Here, we use multiple precise geodetic data sets and a simultaneous global estimation platform to determine that the ITRF2008 origin is consistent with the mean CM at the level of 0.5 mm yr−1, and the mean radius of the Earth is not changing to within 1σ measurement uncertainty of 0.2 mm yr−1.
REMEMBER: This is the accuracy of the reference frame. Additional inaccuracies will arise from specific effects on specific platforms like Envisat.
There is also a summary at
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/2011rel4-global-mean-sea-level-time-series-seasonal-signals-retained
Can anyone resolve my confusion before I shoot myself? It is wierd.
It is a problem that errors and corrections come and go.
00
[…] eyes can see how adjustments to the data progressively shift the graphs in one direction. (See these sea level graphs for example.) The adjustments are non-random, just like the adjustments to global temperature sets, […]
00
If ever the day comes when climate catastrophists realise the error of their ways, we can all settle down to live in “Perfect Harmony.”
Ö¿Ö
00
[…] to oceans inundating coastal communities, Topex Poseidon satellites show virtually no rise in sea levels between 1993 and 2001, and the EU’s Envisat satellites show no rise from 2003 through 2011. The […]
00
[…] to oceans inundating coastal communities, Topex Poseidon satellites show virtually no rise in sea levels between 1993 and 2001, and the EU’s Envisat satellites show no rise from 2003 through 2011. The […]
00
[…] to oceans inundating coastal communities, Topex Poseidon satellites show virtually no rise in sea levels between 1993 and 2001, and the EU’s Envisat satellites show no rise from 2003 through 2011. […]
00
[…] to oceans inundating coastal communities, Topex Poseidon satellites show virtually no rise in sea levels between 1993 and 2001, and the EU’s Envisat satellites show no rise from 2003 through 2011. […]
00
[…] to oceans inundating coastal communities, Topex Poseidon satellites show virtually no rise in sea levels between 1993 and 2001, and the EU’s Envisat satellites show no rise from 2003 through 2011. The […]
00
[…] to oceans inundating coastal communities, Topex Poseidon satellites show virtuallyno rise in sea levels between 1993 and 2001, and the EU’s Envisat satellites show no rise from 2003 through 2011. The […]
00