Tuesday, June 26, 2007
A Look At Sea-Level And Blueberries
I am a sea-level specialist. There are many good sea-level people in the world, but let's put it this way: There's no one who's beaten me. I took my thesis in 1969, devoted to a large extent to the sea-level problem. From then on, I have launched most of the new theories, in the '70s, '80s, and '90s.The climate numbers really are being fudged right and left. Climate Audit often looks in great detail at such malfeasance. Another interesting site is SurfaceStation.org, at which volunteers survey surface stations that collect weather data to detect any problems problems that would affect the data, and then the volunteers upload their findings, complete with photgraphs.
we can see that the sea level was indeed rising, from, let us say, 1850 to 1930-40. And that rise had a rate in the order of 1 millimeter per year. Not more. 1.1 is the exact figure. And we can check that, because Holland is a subsiding area; it has been subsiding for many millions of years; and Sweden, after the last Ice Age, was uplifted. So if you balance those, there is only one solution, and it will be this figure.
That ended in 1940, and there had been no rise until 1970; and then we can come into the debate here on what is going on, and we have to go to satellite altimetry, and I will return to that. But before doing that: There's another way of checking it, because if the radius of the Earth increases, because sea level is rising, then immediately the Earth's rate of rotation would slow down. That is a physical law, right? You have it in figure-skating: when they rotate very fast, the arms are close to the body; and then when they increase the radius, by putting out their arms, they stop by themsel-ves. So you can look at the rotation and the same comes up: Yes, it might be 1.1 mm per year, but absolutely not more. It could be less, because there could be other factors affecting the Earth, but it certainly could not be more. Absolutely not! Again, it's a matter of physics.
So, we have this 1 mm per year up to 1930, by observation, and we have it by rotation recording. So we go with those two. They go up and down, but there's no trend in it; it was up until 1930, and then down again. There's no trend, absolutely no trend.
...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.
Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC's] publications, in their website, was a strai-ght 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 ans-wered, that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have gotten any trend!
That is terrible! As a matter of fact, it is a falsification of the data set. Why? Because they know the answer. And there you come to the point: They “know” the answer; the rest of us, we are searching for the answer. Because we are field geologists; they are computer scientists. So all this talk that sea level is rising, this stems from the computer modeling, not from observations. The observations don't find it!
I think the peasants are revolting, and it is certain that climate "scientists" find such peasants absolutely disgusting. To understand why, look at this post at Climate Audit using the information uploaded to Surface Station for the Ukiah station, and CHECK OUT THE GHCN RAW DATA vs all the "adjusted" versions:
Me, I just track when the blueberries ripen, and according to my Rethuglican Big-Oil Influenced blueberries, it's getting significantly cooler and has been for years. I have tried talking to them about the Fairness Doctrine, but they stubbornly insist on their Right-Wing Delayed Ripening Theocratic World Domination campaign. I'm waiting for Senator Feinstein to come by and give them what-for; clearly they need to be "encouraged" to adopt a balanced viewpoint on the issue so that facts can be heard. Of course, Roger Pielke also must be suppressed. We will only have a safe, sound society when the blueberries and scientists have been included in the global warming Gleichschaltung.
Based on my personal experience with the intransigent nature of right-wing blueberry bushes and scientists offended by the misuse of data (if I had thought to videotape Chief No-Nag's yodeling on the topic, I'd be rich by now), I would suggest that Senator Feinstein use a flame-thrower; a speech code just won't do it.