YOUR attribution was merely to a blog, Louise. I thought you despised blogs?
I don't know where you got that impression - I visit many blogs and have frequently posted articles and comments on this site that I found on blogs. Once again, you seem to be making unfounded assumptions about me.
You said "I see Grant Smith doesn't give the source of his info,"
You were wrong - he gave a direct link to WUWT and to NOAA.
Why can't you admit that you were wrong? It's plainly there for everyone to see
Post by marchesarosa on Apr 24, 2011 14:02:16 GMT 1
I was aware that Tamino's source was NOAA because I had already read the threads on WUWT.
YOU did not see fit to state the source of the three graphs YOU posted above because YOU (and TAMINO aka Hansen's Bulldog) were far too busy trying to wrongfoot WUWT.
The point is the sea level rise HAS plateaued off. Why would that be a source of anxiety to you and tamino, Loouise? Has the AGW "Rapid Response Team" been deputed by Consensus HQ to knock the NOAA data and all who publicise it?
Inconvenient observations getting in the way of Hansen's scare story, perhaps?
Whether I am wrong is irrelevant, Loouise, to all except those who think the climate debate is about personalities and not facts. Get back home to the place where they think "RISE" = "ACCELERATION".
Those headlines seem rather inflamatory when their web site clearly shows an adjustment for Glacial Isostatic Adjustment of 0.3mm sealevel.colorado.edu/content/data-processing-methods and indeed, one of your links (the latter written by James Taylor of the Heartland Institute*) states "the University of Colorado’s NASA-funded Sea Level Research Group has announced it will begin adding a nonexistent 0.3 millimeters per year to its Global Mean Sea Level Time Series. " and "The NASA-funded group claims glacial melt is removing weight that had been pressing down on land masses, which in turn is causing land mass to rise."
"Announcing" an adjustment is hardly 'fiddling the data'
They're hardly trying to hide anything by making such a public announcement and also showing this clearly on their website - anyone can access the raw, unadjusted data.
Earlier in this thread I (and the scientists) were accused of ignoring the effect of isostatic rebound. This is clearly being taken into account yet that too is wrong apparently.
* The Heartland Institute - anyone who is unaware of this group should have a quick google to better understand their perspective.
It's all happened before, try the East coast of England some time in the middle ages, didn't King John lose some treasure off the East coast? StuartG ps. Be careful You can't access the raw data in most cases. We still haven't heard about the results from drone use in the Pacific Ocean. That part of NASA is 'political' and its work varies depending upon the party in power. You could see it change when the transfer from Bush to Obama took place. StuartG ps. "Those headlines seem rather inflamatory" of course, that's why it's 'political' in USA and that's the 'gainsayers', it was political here, less so now. T blair had His own web site, which seems now to have died. You see You cannot divorce the subject from politics, that's why the scientists involved got themselves past their swimming depth. Scientists can do a bit of back-stabbing but politicians do it big time and parties have departments of dis-information. They don't only write 'dodgy dossiers' for war.
"first time last spring" You said it, if the 'Yanks' had wanted to shift their r's they would have done. I expect it's more political than that, I remember thinking 'some good science data at last' well I suspect it was better than they expected and the political ramifications and possibly upsetting some long-held views may well delay it a bit more. Time will tell, and frankly if I'm wrong then - good. There was some talk of the old nugget about the 'ozone hole' I suspect that is as a result of some of this data. There is still a lot of crap spoken about temperatures [global data of], one of my interests was shortwave radio, a lot of data is transmitted from outlying station to 'control' via this means. I have a list in one of my reference books, it is 10,000 entries long, each giving temp, baro, windspeed and so on. Trouble is it is nearly impossible to collate with any sense [long before they get to stats and scientists] because one countries idea of a [say] thermometer is different from another, so recorded values vary from country to country. StA was making the point the other day in one of Her answers [as I understood it] to the effect that it didn't matter if the temp obtained was say 0.5 C out from its real, as we were talking temp variations over a period. Very true, but if the apparatus is 'various' then there's not a 'cat in hells chance' of getting any meaningful results. At least with 'GloPak' the data even if out in absolute terms, will still be consistent an meaningful when used to demonstrate trends. StuartG ps. it also demonstrates the peaceful uses of such devices. and us Brits use these to in Afghanistan. www.blogs.mod.uk/defence_news/2011/05/defence-in-the-media-13-may-2011.html half-way down. our peaceful uses could be to transport our politicians, that would be cheaper and then if they 'decked' it wouldn't matter too much and would give 'the Lads' some practice.
I read that paper with some interest. The author uses several different arguments to explain away the supposed measured increase in sea level in different parts of the world. For example, he claims that the satellite measurements must be in error for French Guyana and Surinam, Korsør is due to subsidence and/or rising and the Earth’s rate of rotation for Amsterdam.
The document as a whole reads more like a political/policy document than a science report.
One thing that does make me curious, if marchesarosa acknowledges that the climate is changing and that this change is natural, why doesn’t she acknowledge that this same natural climate change may have an impact on sea level? If the glaciers and antarctic ice cap are melting, won’t the seal level rise regardless of the cause of that melting?