Tweet
Re: Climate and Chess
There is if you use their reference point in Hong Kong which is subsiding. Of course they ignore the data from the other five stations which are not subsiding and thus provide accurate measures.
[Aside to the AGW religious zealots posting here, why is it that when they have a wide set of data points available they always trim it down to only the ones that support their hypothesis and discard all the rest?]
"Another way of looking at what is going
on is the tide gauge. Tide gauging is very
complicated, because it gives different answers
for wherever you are in the world. But
we have to rely on geology when we interpret
it. So, for example, those people in the
IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change], choose Hong Kong, which has six
tide gauges, and they choose the record of
one, which gives 2.3 mm per year rise of sea
level. Every geologist knows that that is a
subsiding area. It’s the compaction of sediment;
it is the only record which you shouldn’t
use. And if that figure is correct, then Holland
would not be subsiding, it would be uplifting.
And that is just ridiculous. Not even ignorance
could be responsible for a thing like that. So tide gauges,
you have to treat very, very carefully.Now, back to satellite altimetry, which shows the water, not
just the coasts, but in the whole of the ocean. And you measure
it by satellite. From 1992 to 2002, [the graph of the sea level]
was a straight line, variability along a straight line, but absolutely
no trend whatsoever. We could see those spikes: a very rapid
rise, but then in half a year, they fall back again. But absolutely
no trend, and to have a sea-level rise, you need a trend.
Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC’s]
publications, in their website, was a straight line—suddenly it
changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per
year, the same as from the tide gauge. And that didn’t look so
nice. It looked as though they had recorded something; but
they hadn’t recorded anything. It was the original one which
they had suddenly twisted up, because they entered a “correction
factor,” which they took from the tide gauge. So it was
not a measured thing, but a figure introduced from outside. I
accused them of this at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow—
I said you have introduced factors from outside; it’s not
a measurement. It looks like it is measured from the satellite,
but you don’t say what really happened. And they answered,
that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have gotten
any trend!"
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/C...rinterview.pdf
To be fair, the IPCC scientific research did not show this. They only inserted this in their summary and conclusions despite the scientists concluding the exact opposite. The hurricane expert sued to have his name removed from the report but the politicians over at IPCC declined to do so.
"Citing a politicized agenda and misrepresentations of climate science, prominent climate scientist Chris Landsea on January 17 resigned his post as a participant in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Landsea's announcement is the second recent major embarrassment for global warming alarmists, whose "hockey stick" representation of world temperatures during the past millennium was recently exposed as being based on faulty data and misleading statistical methods. (See "Climate Alarmists Playing Shell Game with Data," page 9.)
Landsea is one of the world's leading hurricane researchers, specializing in seasonal and climatic relationships of Atlantic tropical cyclones. He served as chair of the American Meteorological Society's (AMS) Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones for the years 2000-2002. He was recipient of a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Post-Doctoral Fellowship in Climate and Global Change for the period 1995-1996.
In his resignation letter, Landsea documented how the IPCC had sanctioned a "misrepresentation" of hurricane research and issued "unfounded pronouncements" to the media that "subverted and compromised" the scientific assessment of the IPCC's hurricane researchers. According to Landsea, statements made by the IPCC to the media demonstrated "preconceived agendas" that are "scientifically unsound.""
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/r...d_Agendas.html
Funny that you should mention the Antarctic where they had to discard the data from 26 or so research station that measure temperature and keep the temperature data which showed no significant increase while keeping the data from the single station that showed an increase due to thermal effects of the research station.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/200...-times-actual/
The problem is not real. Where you have people who refuse to release the raw "unadjusted" data and conspire to conceal evidence, destroy data and emails to prevent others from examining it you can draw your own conclusions as to the validity of their "research".
Actually humankind as a whole would gain from warmer temperatures. Unfortunately it seems that it will soon be apparent that temperatures are heading in the opposite direction. Copenhagen is about moving money around and allowing the winners to siphon it from the U.S. and Canada (the big losers in these schemes).
Vlad Drkulec
Originally posted by Kevin Pacey
View Post
[Aside to the AGW religious zealots posting here, why is it that when they have a wide set of data points available they always trim it down to only the ones that support their hypothesis and discard all the rest?]
"Another way of looking at what is going
on is the tide gauge. Tide gauging is very
complicated, because it gives different answers
for wherever you are in the world. But
we have to rely on geology when we interpret
it. So, for example, those people in the
IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change], choose Hong Kong, which has six
tide gauges, and they choose the record of
one, which gives 2.3 mm per year rise of sea
level. Every geologist knows that that is a
subsiding area. It’s the compaction of sediment;
it is the only record which you shouldn’t
use. And if that figure is correct, then Holland
would not be subsiding, it would be uplifting.
And that is just ridiculous. Not even ignorance
could be responsible for a thing like that. So tide gauges,
you have to treat very, very carefully.Now, back to satellite altimetry, which shows the water, not
just the coasts, but in the whole of the ocean. And you measure
it by satellite. From 1992 to 2002, [the graph of the sea level]
was a straight line, variability along a straight line, but absolutely
no trend whatsoever. We could see those spikes: a very rapid
rise, but then in half a year, they fall back again. But absolutely
no trend, and to have a sea-level rise, you need a trend.
Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC’s]
publications, in their website, was a straight line—suddenly it
changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per
year, the same as from the tide gauge. And that didn’t look so
nice. It looked as though they had recorded something; but
they hadn’t recorded anything. It was the original one which
they had suddenly twisted up, because they entered a “correction
factor,” which they took from the tide gauge. So it was
not a measured thing, but a figure introduced from outside. I
accused them of this at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow—
I said you have introduced factors from outside; it’s not
a measurement. It looks like it is measured from the satellite,
but you don’t say what really happened. And they answered,
that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have gotten
any trend!"
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/C...rinterview.pdf
2) Where are all the extra (and strong) hurricanes we were supposed to get as things worsened, and soon?
"Citing a politicized agenda and misrepresentations of climate science, prominent climate scientist Chris Landsea on January 17 resigned his post as a participant in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Landsea's announcement is the second recent major embarrassment for global warming alarmists, whose "hockey stick" representation of world temperatures during the past millennium was recently exposed as being based on faulty data and misleading statistical methods. (See "Climate Alarmists Playing Shell Game with Data," page 9.)
Landsea is one of the world's leading hurricane researchers, specializing in seasonal and climatic relationships of Atlantic tropical cyclones. He served as chair of the American Meteorological Society's (AMS) Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones for the years 2000-2002. He was recipient of a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Post-Doctoral Fellowship in Climate and Global Change for the period 1995-1996.
In his resignation letter, Landsea documented how the IPCC had sanctioned a "misrepresentation" of hurricane research and issued "unfounded pronouncements" to the media that "subverted and compromised" the scientific assessment of the IPCC's hurricane researchers. According to Landsea, statements made by the IPCC to the media demonstrated "preconceived agendas" that are "scientifically unsound.""
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/r...d_Agendas.html
3) Why is the Antarctic ice sheet expanding, if I've heard correctly (and Arctic ice receding less very recently)?
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/200...-times-actual/
5) On the political solution side, if the problem is indeed real, I don't see why money is not spent helping people directly (even relocating them if necessary) rather than transferring wealth between rich and developing countries (the truth may be that it is all part of a plan for a global government, which started with the Club of Rome's dreams for a EU decades ago)?
6) Purely from a selfish point of view, Canadians largely seem to gain if climate change is real, namely through warmer weather. I grant you, if I lived in Vancouver, or another coastal area, I might be nervous if I thought there was even a remote chance sea levels might rise, and I would be urging everyone to take action, including spending lots of money, so that I wouldn't have to relocate to an inland location.
Vlad Drkulec
Comment