Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This time conveniently and untruthfully adding a little more sea level rise every year to their vaunted puter models than actually is occuring. Nothing to see here folks just more lies.
"Israising sea levels, as Al Gore has argued -- or are climate scientists doctoring the data?
The University of Colorado’s Sea Level Research Group decided in May to add 0.3 millimeters -- or about the thickness of a fingernail -- every year to its actual measurements of sea levels, sparking criticism from experts who called it an attempt to exaggerate the effects of
"Gatekeepers of our sea level data are manufacturing a fictitious sea level rise that is not occurring," said James M. Taylor, a lawyer who focuses on environmental issues for the Heartland Institute.
Steve Nerem, the director of the widely relied-upon research center, told FoxNews.com that his group added the 0.3 millimeters per year to the actual sea level measurements because land masses, still rebounding from the ice age, are rising and increasing the amount of water that oceans can hold.
The only way a case can be made for cap and trade regulations is gross distortion of science, facts, and truth. No one should ever be surprised when the global warmers are busted fudging data and manipulating information to suit their agenda.
Their only replies are usually: Bush, big oil, Koch brothers, big coal, SUV driving capitalists, blah blah blah.
Well, there is a valid reason for applying specific types of adjustments as such. In that respect they are not "fudging" for applying a correction to the data, but how much, why exactly, and what the specific data is pointing out is a different story and due to the naming of such changes often to be poorly termed and creates confusion with the issue. The problem with this data is when it is applied to a claim of evidence to sea level rise for any specific position (the ocean swallowing up the beach front property) as these are absurd claims that like to look at the trend and proclaim a rise, but also fail to acknowledge that the level has been rising for the past 7000 years anyway and the "reason" for the GIA is one clue as to why this data is a non-issue for those positions. /shrug
Well, there is a valid reason for applying specific types of adjustments as such. In that respect they are not "fudging" for applying a correction to the data, but how much, why exactly, and what the specific data is pointing out is a different story and due to the naming of such changes often to be poorly termed and creates confusion with the issue. The problem with this data is when it is applied to a claim of evidence to sea level rise for any specific position (the ocean swallowing up the beach front property) as these are absurd claims that like to look at the trend and proclaim a rise, but also fail to acknowledge that the level has been rising for the past 7000 years anyway and the "reason" for the GIA is one clue as to why this data is a non-issue for those positions. /shrug
Whew! When do you breathe?
Seriously though, the real reason the oceans appear to be rising is all the development, buildings and people on the beach fronts. The weight of all this is pushing the ground down into the oceans. It's a real issue, my Congressman told me so. Too much weight could cause the land to just flip over someday.
The above is the inverted Tiljander series Mann loves to use. The bottom is the correct series to which Tiljander inverted (as Mann did) for the purpose of his study. Tiljander noted such that he did invert it and Mann was aware of this, though he still used it in MBH 98 and 2000 as well as this more recent sea level paper. Notice how it changes everything when you invert?
This is simply an example made in the above link to show the absurdity of applying such methods. That is, if anyone were to take the above surface temp records and invert them to make a position such as Mann does with the sediment records... well... how long would it take before AGW supporters started calling for fraud investigations and stringing people from the trees? Apparently, with Manns work, it is acceptable, or well... any work that supports an AGW position. /chuckle
Take away the grant money and global warming becomes last years Christmas present. It is all about the money...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
