Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Did the IPCC falsify sea level data?
Posted by: mcq on Wednesday, December 05, 2007

Per the Telegraph, that's the charge being leveled by a Swedish scientist:
The IPCC falsified data showing a sea level rise from 1992-2002 according to Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, former head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden. In an interview by George Murphy, Mörner cites various examples of falsification of evidence claiming sea level rises.

"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" in an area of Hong Kong that had been subsiding, or sinking.

Mörner says that the claim that salt water invasion of a fresh water aquifer indicated a sea level rise ignores the more likely cause due to draining the aquifer for the pineapple industry.
My advice from the past remains current: be very skeptical and require a very high level of proof, not conjecture, before agreeing to open your wallet.

Oh, and Mörner isn't at all impressed with the computer models used:
Mörner is particularly critical of the overemphasis on computer modeling by IPCC "experts" instead of doing actual field research like geologists do.

" Again, it was a computer issue. This is the typical thing: The metereological community works with computers, simple computers. Geologists don't do that! We go out in the field and observe, and then we can try to make a model with computerization; but it's not the first thing."
Heh ...
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
It’s Mörner; the o-umlaut got stripped somewhere.
 
Written By: Fredrik Nyman
URL: http://
Unfortunately, the faithful can’t be bothered by these sorts of inconvenient truths...
 
Written By: Rob
URL: http://
There will always be some mistakes and outright fraud when measuring the climate because it’s such a political issue. However, there is no reason to wait for absolute proof in before we start to do something. The risk that global warming is a very real threat makes it actionable in terms of expected value. To put it another way, if you thought there was 50% change there was a bomb in your house, would you do something about it, or wait until you were 100% sure.
 
Written By: Tony Trepanier
URL: http://www.undergroundecon.blogspot.com
To put it another way, if you thought there was 50% change there was a bomb in your house, would you do something about it, or wait until you were 100% sure.
What’s the cost of doing something about it?

And, what kinda bomb is it? A cherry bomb? Two tons of TNT?

In order to know the answer to your question, I need to know more, so I can conduct a proper cost-benifit analysis.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
.. if you thought there was 50% change there was a bomb in your house, would you do something about it ..
I’d look for the bomb. I’d listen for the bomb.
But sure as hell, I wouldn’t raze the house myself.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
To put it another way, if you thought there was 50% change there was a bomb in your house, would you do something...
Well, there is a 100% chance that there is a potential bomb in both my house and my garage. I want you to pay to protect me.

And the potential bomb... gasoline, propane, paint, fertilizer, and even some gun powder.
However, there is no reason to wait for absolute proof in before we start to do something.
Gotta do something... don’t know what effect it will have, but gotta do it anyway. But I won’t do it, I’m too important to subject myself to what I implore everyone else to do.
The risk that global warming is a very real threat makes it actionable in terms of expected value.
Sorry, but when that very real threat relies upon falsified data, how do we know it is really a threat? But let’s "actionate" by all means, makes us feel good... and important.

I just don’t understand why those fear-mongering fascist Rethugucraps don’t understand just how scary global warming is, and why they oppose the necessary governmental control over all facets of the economy to prevent this imminent catastrophe.
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
To put it another way, if you thought there was 50% change there was a bomb in your house, would you do something...
Yeah, I’d leave the house.

I think what you are trying to ask is ’if someone is going to put a bomb in your house in 50 years... what will you do today?’

To which I’d answer... not much. At least not today.
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
Thanks Fredrik ... corrected.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://qando.net
I wonder how much emission reduction is happening right now due to the high cost of oil? Both in terms of people using less, and in terms of people figuring out ways to use less in the future.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
And maybe you should be just as skeptical of this so-called expert:

Dr. Axel-Morner claims to be an expert in "dowsing," the practice of finding water, metals, gemstones etc. through the use of a Y-shaped twig. Axel-Morner’s attempt to prove his dowsing abilities is chronicled by James Randi, the well-known myth buster, who has offered the longstanding One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge.

Listed as an "allied expert" for a Canadian group called the "Natural Resource Stewardship Project," (NRSP) a lobby organization that refuses to disclose it’s funding sources. Two of the three Directors on the board of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project are registered energy industry lobbyists and senior executives of the High Park Advocacy Group, a Toronto based lobby firm that specializes in “energy, environment and ethics.”


I don’t know about you but I don’t always accept the word of a Paranormal wacko as being particularly valid.
 
Written By: Other Ed
URL: http://
There will always be some mistakes and outright fraud when measuring the climate because it’s such a political issue. However, there is no reason to wait for absolute proof in before we start to do something. The risk that global warming is a very real threat makes it actionable in terms of expected value. To put it another way, if you thought there was 50% change there was a bomb in your house, would you do something about it, or wait until you were 100% sure.
This entire statement stands on its own as a testament to the cattle who’ve been bamboozled by the global warming industry. No one is going to change this guy’s thinking. If he had a skirt on, he’d be Barbara Boxer.
I don’t know about you but I don’t always accept the word of a Paranormal wacko as being particularly valid.
You believe Al Gore though, right? You know, the scientist?
 
Written By: Rob
URL: http://
I don’t know about you but I don’t always accept the word of a Paranormal wacko as being particularly valid.
Well, he’s also a retired professor of Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics, so I don’t think the term "paranormal wacko" applies. The dowsing stuff certainly gives one pause, but you skipped the following paragraph from your quote (I went to the exact same web page you did):
Axel-Morner is a retired professor from the University of Stockholm. According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, Axel-Morner has published 65+ original research papers in peer-reviewed journals, mainly in the area of paleoseismicity, in other words the study of historical earthquake activity
If anything, he’s certainly able to find water without a Y-shaped stick.

A little more on him:
Nils-Axel Mörner is the former head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, having retired in 2005. He was president of the INQUA Commission on Neotectonics (1981-1989) and president of the INQUA (International Union for Quaternary Research) Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999-2003).[1] He headed the INTAS (International Association for the promotion of cooperation with scientists from the New Independent States of the former Soviet Union) Project on Geomagnetism and Climate (1997-2003). He is a critic of the IPCC and the notion that the global sea level is rising.
Again, the dowsing stuff doesn’t speak well of him, but I don’t think it undermines the rest of his work. After all, Albert Einstein spent half his life trying to disprove quantum physics, and nobody thinks he’s a superstitious old goat.

 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
The interview was conducted by the LaRouchite EIR. If you want to get in bed with dowsers and LaRouchites, then follow the crazy to wherever it takes you, I say.
 
Written By: Flavor Flavius Julianus
URL: http://
Einstein was a classically trained physicist looking for a classical way to explain some experimental results that appeared to be consistent only with quantum mechanics theory. Mörner has a long-term belief in pseudo-science. If classical physics possessed *no* explanatory power whatsoever(it explains most of what we see quite well), I suppose the erroneous beliefs of the two would be comparable.

If egregiously poor scientific judgment on the part of a scientist is not an entirely valid reason to distrust his work, what is?




 
Written By: rob
URL: http://
Okay, I am skeptical of this guy, but I also have to acknowledge he has some well documented expertise according to scientists, not McQ.

So, rather than dismiss him, could someone address the merits of his point?
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
So, rather than dismiss him, could someone address the merits of his point?
Nah.

That would move them from the realm of a logical fallacy to one of actually of having to address an argument.

No chance of that.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog

"This tree, which I showed in the documentary, is interesting. This is a prison island, and when people left the island, from the ’50s, it was a marker for them, when they saw this tree alone out there, they said, “Ah, freedom!” They were allowed back. And there have been writings and talks about this. I knew that this tree was in that terrible position already in the 1950s. So the slightest rise, and it would have been gone. I used it in my writings and for television. You know what happened? There came an Australian sea-level team, which was for the IPCC and against me. Then the students pulled down the tree by hand! They destroyed the evidence. What kind of people are those? And we came to launch this film, “Doomsday Called Off,” right after, and the tree was still green. And I heard from the locals that they had seen the people who had pulled it down. So I put it up again, by hand, and made my TV program. I haven’t told anybody else, but this was the story."

So he faked his documentary picture of the tree and then later excused his fakery by reporting that "locals" told him that they had "seen the people who had pulled it down." If he actually had good evidence that anyone had pulled the tree down, he should have put *that* in his documentary. What he did instead, was dishonest reporting.

Once we know that he plays fast and loose with facts and that he has at least one extremely crackpot opinion, he’s lost all credibility. No one needs to address any of his arguments.

If some reputable scientist wishes to spend some of his time verifying Mörner’s points, perhaps some of them may be salvaged.




 
Written By: rob
URL: http://
While "falsified sea level data" sounds like a serious charge, this guy is disputing data from a single observation station. There are thousands of observation stations, and we can measure sea level in other ways too, with satellites for example. His is a minor quibble if ever there was one.

As for his remarks about computers, he seems blissfully unaware of how much field research went in to creating and fine-tuning the equations that drive climate models. Absent a toy planet to play with, the only way to study Earth’s climate is by building a virtual one. Climate models are calibrated by sliding them back to some point in the past and seeing how well they "predict" what is not actually the future, and if you read actual peer-reviewed articles, the modelers are careful to say just how confident they are over various time scales.

Retired scientists who hate computers seem to be the new darlings of those who aim to obfuscate.

Speaking of which, why don’t you "free market" guys figure out ways to internalize pollution costs so markets can solve emissions problems instead of bureaucrats?
 
Written By: persimmon
URL: http://
"The risk that global warming is a very real threat makes it actionable in terms of expected value"

I’m curious, what value would that be? How do you define it, or know that such actions will produce those expected values?

GW is not a subject that has anything to do with bureaucrats solving any kind of problem, either. They can’t, and it’s been proven time and again that they are a cure that is far worse than the disease.

If you feel like doing something about it, by all means, please, but don’t expect everyone around you to drop their own interests, especially in the name of law, to help with your cause.

Votable tyranny is all that is.
 
Written By: theirritablearchitect
URL: ramblingsfromoz.blogspot.com
Expected value is a risk analysis term. Risk analysis is an established methodology commonly used in engineering and insurance, and it has been applied to climate change. I believe such values are discussed in the IPCC report.

Regarding bureaucrats, duh. That’s why I suggested working on market solutions before bureaucrats can get their mitts on the problem.
 
Written By: persimmon
URL: http://
I big non-answer then?

And I know far more about risk analysis than you do, so let’s cut that crap and quit deflecting. What value is there?
 
Written By: theirritablearchitect
URL: ramblingsfromoz.blogspot.com
The person who made the remark you are responding to seems to have lost interest. I just stepped in because your questions suggest to me that you do not know what an expected value is. "What value is there?" and "How do you...know that such actions will produce those expected values?" are nonsensical questions if you know what an expected value is. Expected values are weighted averages over a broad range of possibilities, so the answer to the first question is "many" and the answer to the second is "you don’t"

It’s not that I’m offering a non-answer; you are asking non-questions.

I don’t recall what the expected value of climate change is, but it is the sum of positive impacts like longer growing seasons and Arctic shipping lanes plus negative impacts like storm damage, droughts, subsidence, disease and refugees. It is a net negative, which is why it is worth making investments now to minimize and prevent it.
 
Written By: persimmon
URL: http://
Nope.

"the sum of positive impacts like longer growing seasons and Arctic shipping lanes plus negative impacts like storm damage, droughts, subsidence, disease and refugees. It is a net negative, which is why it is worth making investments now to minimize and prevent it."

That is the assumption, and NONE of it can be proven, and you know it!

These projections don’t have any credible claims when tested against the scientific method. Period.

You lose.
 
Written By: theirritablearchitect
URL: ramblingsfromoz.blogspot.com
"That is the assumption, and NONE of it can be proven, and you know it!"

Which just proves that you know nothing about expected values. Your declaration of victory is a transparent attempt to end a conversation that is beyond your capacities.

Speaking of which, it was someone named Tony who made the comment you objected to. You haven’t addressed any of my points. I’m just trying to defend Tony from your belligerence since he seems to have lost interest.
 
Written By: persimmon
URL: http://
"Which just proves that you know nothing about expected values. Your declaration of victory is a transparent attempt to end a conversation that is beyond your capacities."

Yet, in your world, your "expected values" supposedly trump my position? Prove it!

YOU are the one who is dealing in things above your capabilities, not me.

Expected values is a cop-out, and anyone who has the IQ of more than 100 can discern that. This has NOTHING to do with precautionary principles, either, which is just another lame attempt at this "expected value" non-argument.

Again, you lose.

 
Written By: theirritablearchitect
URL: http://ramblingsfromoz.blogspot.com
Oh, and Tony Trepanier’s comparison is fundamentally ridiculous, and again, if you had a brain and were using it, you’d know why, persimmon.

Here’s a hint; If using Tony’s analogy, there are ways to prove if there is a bomb in your house, even without tearing it down. Go ahead, challenge me on this, I DARE YOU!
 
Written By: theirritablearchitect
URL: http://ramblingsfromoz.blogspot.com
me9yvU ajxgtyydrbuu, [url=http://izmyewvgobms.com/]izmyewvgobms[/url], [link=http://gbbzkrxmiwvo.com/]gbbzkrxmiwvo[/link], http://pbfyrftbrcyz.com/
 
Written By: hizmxknjxsz
URL: http://dhcpjledzvdz.com/

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider