Free Markets, Free People

As if on cue–AGW group doctors sea-level numbers

After the story this morning about the alarmist scientist turned skeptic  this story comes as the cherry on top of the AGW sundae:

Faced with the embarrassing fact that sea level is not rising nearly as much as has been predicted, 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. As a result, alarmists will be able to present sea level charts asserting an accelerating rise in sea level that is not occurring in the real world.

Human civilization readily adapted to the seven inches of sea level rise that occurred during the twentieth century. Alarmists, however, claim global warming will cause sea level to rise much more rapidly during the present century. United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) computer models project approximately 15 inches of sea level rise during the 21st century. That’s more than double the sea level rise that occurred during the twentieth century. A more “mainstream” prediction among alarmists is 3 feet of sea level rise this century. Some alarmists have even projected 20 feet of global sea level rise this century.

Satellite measurements, however, show global sea level rose merely 0.83 inches during the first decade of the 21st century (a pace of just 8 inches for the entire century), and has barely risen at all since 2006. This puts alarmists in the embarrassing position of defending predictions that are not coming true in the real world.

So, as with temperature and other data that has been used in this scam, they decided to doctor the numbers.

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. This welcome news mitigates sea-level rise from melting glacial ice, meaning sea level will rise less than previously thought. However, it is very inconvenient for alarmist sea level predictions. Therefore, instead of reporting the amount by which sea level is rising in the real world, the Sea Level Research Group has begun adding 0.3 millimeters per year of fictitious sea level rise to “compensate” for rising land mass.

The extra 0.3 millimeters of fictitious sea level rise will add up to 1.2 inches over the course of the 21st century. While this is not monumental in and of itself, it will allow alarmists to paint a dramatically different picture of sea level rise than is occurring in the real world. For example, the current pace of 8 inches of sea level rise for the present century is essentially no different than the 7 inches of sea level rise that occurred last century. However, with an artificially enhanced 9.2 inches of sea level rise, alarmists can claim sea level is rising 31 percent faster than it did last century.

Ye gods.

All I hope is Guam doesn’t tip over because of all of this.

If there’s anyone out there that still believes the “science” involved here is valid much less settled, you might want to buy some ocean front property in Idaho.

It’s becoming laughable, isn’t it?


Twitter: @McQandO


16 Responses to As if on cue–AGW group doctors sea-level numbers

  • Ye Gods.  The only reason sea level rise is important is because it’s in relation to the land.  Nobody cares if the Marianas trench is slightly deeper.  We care that the sea rise is going to wipe out significant arable coastal acreage.  So they’re making their numbers worthless for any practical purpose while making them important for solely political ones.  I can guarantee that most of the consequences of the new sea level numbers will be miss-estimated now.

  • Why 0.3 millimeters?  If you’re going to add phony numbers, go big.  Add 3 feet per year.  Add 50 feet per year.
    “At this rate, the top of Mount Everest will be covered by water by the year 2078. So we need to destroy our economy and bankrupt civilization NOW, people!!!!”
    No one is impressed by a coward.

  • Geeze, anyone who studies true science knows damn well that a 0.3mm fictitious rise is totally unrealistic and if they really want to get numbers they can use effectively they should be adding at least .05mm of arbitrary rise to account for continental landmass rising.
    And the idea of using the ACTUAL data?  Bosh!  What kind of SCIENCE IS THAT!!!!!  Insanity!  They are constantly misunderestimating the potential damage their willy nilly use of insufficiently bad data will cause!

  • They gotta do something to keep the fear up and the faith alive.

  • McQIt’s becoming laughable, isn’t it?

    No, because these people continue to get away with their con job and the consequences for the rest of us are pretty grave. 

    I recall reading (sorry; don’t recall where) that some British agency has gravely announced that global warming will interfere with the internet.  Maybe next they can claim that AGW will cause women to be uglier, or beer to taste bad, or something even worse.

  • rebounding land would displace water and send it higher elsewhere averaging out shoreline levels to a degree.  Not a well thought out excuse. 

  • Yes it is not laughable, it is sad that they have concocted this obvious scare hoax, but by sheer political will are still trying to jamm it down our throats.

  • One important change in these releases is that we are now adding a correction of 0.3 mm/year due to Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA), so you may notice that the rate of sea level rise is now 0.3 mm/year higher than earlier releases. This is a correction to account for the fact that the global ocean basins are getting slightly larger over time as mantle material moves from under the oceans into previously glaciated regions on land. Simply subtract 0.3 mm/year if you prefer to not include the GIA correction.

    Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA) is

    the process whereby the Earth’s shape and gravitational field are modified in response to the large scale changes in surface mass load that have attended the glaciation and deglaciation of the planetary surface. The last deglaciation event of the current ice-age began at Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) approximately 21,000 calendar years ago and ended approximately 5000 years ago, by which time the cryosphere had been diminished to approximately its present geographical extent.

    Why are thry adding 0.3 mm/year if it ended 5000 years ago ?

    • The belief (or sales pitch) is that AGW is artificially causing more deglaciation.

  • More inbred, sterile rambling from you guys. {eyes rolling}

    Meanwhile, over on my own blog, I’m discussing important things instead of going against the consensus, settled science of climate change. I’m talking about the nature of God, for example, with a brilliant blog entry that doesn’t either sound like a B- essay in freshman composition, so stop saying that. I’m a good writer! And I’ll prove it some day, and the fact that my first book only sold 17 copies that were not bought by students of friends of mine as assigned reading doesn’t change that. They people who read it all told me how wonderful it was. All I had to do was ask, and they assured me that it was one of the best things they had ever written, and I should be proud of having written it, and that I should be just fine now that the giant magenta caterpillars have mostly died off.

    In fact, I’m writing a new book right now, on political economy. Stop laughing! I understand economics! Why, I had to explain to you thick righties that markets don’t adjust themselves, there’s no reason to believe they do.

    And don’t start up about how last year I was going to write a book explaining the political positions of dense righties, tentatively titled “Righties in the Mist: A Study of Dense Righties in Their Natural Blog Habitats”. Just don’t start. Because me talking about how I was going to write it and was taking a sabbatical for it and all that, and then just dropping all references to it, certainly doesn’t mean I’m a complete blowhard saying things to pump myself up and talk down to you guys. Nope.

    This new book will explain so much. It will also be about spirituality, and the multiple worlds stuff from quantum physics, which I totally understand by the way. Sure, some of the math on Dilbert Spaces is a bit past Introductory Algebra for Social Science Majors, but still, I’m confident I’ve got the basics.

    I’ve also got posts on my blog explaining what a great job Obama, peace be upon him, is doing. I explain why he is just as popular as Reagan was at this point, and I don’t either have to supply links for that, so stop asking. I decree it. I was in DC in the eighties, doing important work for a senator, and not just fetching coffee, so stop saying that, and that means I know all about Reagan. Because I was there and all.

    Anyway, Obama is almost certain to be re-elected. Yep, my vast experience with politics and economics assures me of that, so don’t even bring up how my vast experience with politics resulted in a wildly wrong prediction in the 2010 election while the posters here were right on the money. It was just luck. Somehow, even though they completely failed to understand that the tea partiers are just a handful of fanatics, they accidentally somehow managed to guess the right outcome. I’m still thinking about that one, and my godlike powers of post-modern political rhetoric will soon lead my to a complete, logical explanation. You just wait.

    Anyway, I can’t believe you guys are still beating the drum on this climate change hoax stuff. I’m sure those people at University of Colorado have perfectly good reasons for fudging adjusting their data. From a cursory reading of how they’ve worked in some stuff on galactical isospastic adjustment, it’s clear they have a good grounding in post-modern techniques for redefining terms to get the right answer.

    • I was wondering what the U of C guys used for their adjustments after the Japanese earthquake radically changed the elevation of their coast and sea floor in places….???
      Seems significant, somehow…

  • Ocean front property in Idaho?  Sign me up.  I’m at 3800 ft elevation above sea level, and we aren’t even that high here.  So bring on the global rise in sea level; we’re ready!

  • The first commenter had it right; the sea level only has relevance relative to land masses, and thus it must be measured relative to land masses, and not on some absolute scale that tells us nothing…

  • But EPA released its endangerment finding, which immediately faced an appeals court challenge.
    As Obama’s much-touted “science-based policy” rotted into “policy-based science,” Big Green sycophants praised the administration in a quarter-page Washington Post ad.
    And so we got Hushgate. That was two years ago. Two weeks ago, Carlin’s report, updated, expanded, and peer-reviewed, was published in the respected International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.
    Carlin’s 47-page, no-nonsense report rips computer modeling, false comparisons between hypotheses and real-world data, and efforts to manipulate climate measurements.
    Main points: The economic benefits of reducing CO2 emissions are vastly lower than EPA estimates, and the costs are vastly higher. Conclusion: “the risk of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming appears to be so low that it is not currently worth doing anything to try to control it.”

  • You are all missing the obvious benefit of higher sea levels. We will use much less fuel driving to the now much closer beaches for holiday. The reduction in CO2 will help cool the planet, freezing up all that extra water nice and safe in glaciers once again. Of course by then we will have developed a magical non-polluting replacement for fossil fuels so the longer drive to the beach will have no environmental impact whatsoever. It’s really not that hard. Still not sure how the greens steal all our money under my scenario, but I’m sure they’ll find a way.