You seem to be continually missing the point, as you trumpet your fringe scientists and their connections to respected scientific organizations, but dismiss the organizations when they don’t say what you want them to say.
My opinion is it was changed to fit their political agenda.
For the non US tide stations they say the data source is the PSMSL,So far I have a sample of one. If no other tide gauge stations are manipulated in
a similar manner or if there are sizable number but it can be reasonably said that
corrections go both ways. It would be prudent to withhold any negative judgement.
At this point it's nowhere near a dead certainty that bias is contaminating NOAA's
treatment of the PSMSL data.
Up until recently I had been under the impression that the NOAA imports PSMSL
data without modification. Such is not the case.
I see we've now heard from the silly and shallow participants.
For those interested in substance:
". . . The whistle was blown by two Australian scientists Dr. Albert Parker and Dr. Clifford Ollier in a paper for Earth Systems and Environment.
The paper – Is the Sea Level Stable at Aden, Yemen? – examines the discrepancies between raw and adjusted sea level data in Aden, Karachi and Mumbai. . . ."
The choice of messenger virtually guarantees that the issue is bull****.
Considering the amount of ice and 90% of the ice is already underwater.....I think we are safe. Are their any studies on the ice over land at the caps?
The Breitbart story is true, the data was changed.
My father-in-law flew photo recon over the Iwo Jima invasion.
The photo below might have been taken from the plane he piloted.
He was from Minnesota farm country and had the rural accent
that you seem to relish making fun of. Smarmy liberals like
you really do piss me off.
Hm, let me get this straight blah ... blah ... blah ... blah ... blah ...
Every now and then I run into some liberal who thinks they are..Every nation on the planet is fooled, too - 'cept for 'Murica...and only the 'Murican ... the uneducated and the willfully ignorant.
Do you understand how big the ocean is? How much water would need to be added to it in order to cause the entirety of our oceans to swell by that much?
The biggest fear of climate change isn't just rising water levels it's what will happen to the overall climate of the earth once the polar ice caps melt entirely. The caps have a radical effect on the overall temperature of the oceans and the planet not to mention the flow of the current.
Try putting a large chunk of ice in a glass of water and let it sit outside on a hot day with a thermometer in it. You'll see that so long as there is at least some ice in the water, the temperature of the water will remain close to 32 degrees farenheit, but as soon as the last piece of ice melts entirely the tempurature of the water will spike significantly in a very short period of time.
For the Ocean levels around the earth to be rising at even 1 mm/yr an incredible amount of ice has to be melting into them.
You know perfectly well what that post was all about, you wrote:
Every now and then I run into some liberal who thinks they are
just ever so smart making fun of people with rural accents as
being uneducated ignorant rubes. Currently that would be you.
"Making fun of people with rural accents"? That's your problem, guy - you ASSUME. I grew up in the boonies, in the MS Delta, as a strong conservative. I had to attend school in the next county over. And my accent was a heck of a lot worse than anything in Wisconsin...and it comes back within less than a minute of talking with anybody from the South.
But YOU, on the other hand, ASSUMED that I was some stuck-up elitist from the Left Coast, and couldn't possibly understand what rural life is like, huh?
Next time, don't assume. Ask first.
..Every nation on the planet is fooled, too - 'cept for 'Murica...and only the 'Murican ... the uneducated and the willfully ignorant.
I didn't assume anything, what you wrote was:
They are also members of Principia Scientific International. A small group of reality challenged people who are so far on the fringe, that if the earth were flat, they would have fallen off the edge. eg: They reject the physics of the 'greenhouse' effect.I think we can safely file this under Ignore.
Albert Parker (aka Alberto Boretti - what is it with deniers and pseudonyms?) and Clifford Ollier already have form for mathematical incompetence published in predatory journals. There's no particular reason to start taking them seriously now (unless, of course, you're so desperate to support your right-wing ideology that you'll believe anything).
If I recall correctly, the papers they were referring to were shoddy and probably should have been rejected by a decent editor and proper peer-review. However they were not kept out of the IPCC report. They were still mentioned - with caveats.Individual doctors and plumbers have been known to behave less than perfectly too.
Should I therefore stop relying on the services of doctors and plumbers?
From your own article.....
"So there is nothing per se wrong with PSMSL making adjustments in order to make the different datasets align."
"In Aden, for example, the alarmists have turned a modest 1.21 mm/year rise into a 3.02 mm/year rise."
So, first, your own article has to admit that there has in fact been a rise in the sea level even if it's not as big as what's been reporting. It also fully admits that there's nothing necessarily wrong with adjusting this data they just don't seem to fully understand why. In otherwords the sea levels are definately rising, and the scientists who study them seem to think it's even worse than their initial measurements indicate even though a bunch of science illerate skeptics don't seem to understand why.
This thread has gotten a bit off topic, but none of this changes the fact that NOAA made real (questionable) adjustment to the Aden data
from it source at PSMSL.
Aden PSMSL 3/1879 measurement 6.995 meters
Aden NOAA 3/1879 measurement 6.768 meters
Delta NOAA to source -.227 meters
Aden PSMSL 11/2010 measurement 7.110 meters
Aden NOAA 11/2010 measurement 7.329 meters
Delta NOAA to source .219 meters.
Sea level added by "adjustments", .446 meters
It is not only that the earlier measurements were adjusted down, but that the later measurements were adjusted up.It looks like a mistake to me. I can see no reason at all why the 1879 to 1893 data should have been shifted downwards, giving a jump in sea level of about 150mm between 1893 and 1916. This would be about 6.5 mm/year over a period when, if anything, the Earth was cooling! One would have expected the sea level to remain roughly constant over this time.
I think ****-up is far more likely than conspiracy, given that the "adjusted" data are a lot less compatible with AGW than the original data! Unless, of course, some saboteur has hacked the data to make it look as though the rising ocean is not related to human CO2 emissions!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?