Dim Sun Anyone?

[MSimon]

Some updates on sea level measurements.

The beam width of the satellites is 300 mi. Assuming a round earth of 4,000 mi radius that means about an 2 3/4 mile difference in height from the center of the beam to the edge.

And from this a 3 cm difference in height is discernible? If enough assumptions are made I suppose it can be done.

Here are a few things to watch out for:

assumptions:

http://www.tos.org/oceanography/issues/ ... _et_al.pdf

density bumps:

http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/Journal/Is ... s1635.html

math:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=859

new satellite:

http://lightblueline.org/satellite-trac ... set-launch

TonyB (01:30:44) :

We are being bamboozled by science which likes to have a nice graph to explain everything, unfortunately the real world is more complicated than that. Global sea levels are -like global temperatures-a nonsensical artefact dreamt up in a computer laboratory.

The sea level calculations rely on an enormous number of variable factors including pressure, location, warmth of oceans, structures, storms, wave heights, surges, stasis, location of the gauge/sensor, slope of the underlying strata etc. The accuracy of measurements is said to be 3cm (10 times the level of the alleged annual rise) but in reality is far vaguer than that because of the inherent difficulties of measuring.

Both the following two sites give a good description of the process-which is being constantly refined but doesn’t get more accurate as the inherent flaws in measuring capabilities can’t be resolved.

http://www.tos.org/oceanography/issues/ ... _et_al.pdf

http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/Journal/Is ... s1635.html

The following site deals with problems of the data;
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=859

This with reliability;
http://lightblueline.org/satellite-trac ... set-launch

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/30/r ... ms-bubkes/

[MSimon]

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 geo-logy 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 gau-ges, 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 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 have been the expert reviewer for the IPCC, both in 2000 and last year. The first time I read it, I was exceptionally surprised. First of all, it had 22 authors, but none of them— none—were sea-level specialists. They were given this mission, because they promised to answer the right thing. Again, it was a computer issue. This is the typical thing: The metereological community works with compu-ters, 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.

http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen7/MornerEng.html

[TallDave]

Last month's UAH anomaly: falling, to .001 degrees.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/07/jun ... 000-deg-c/


Yes, it's one month, but the trend line keeps getting flatter -- and the spike needed to make the slope look like the GCM predictions or the scary cherry-picked-proxy+corrupted-GISS chart keeps getting bigger and bigger.

[IntLibber]

Last month's UAH anomaly: falling, to .001 degrees.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/07/jun ... 000-deg-c/


Yes, it's one month, but the trend line keeps getting flatter -- and the spike needed to make the slope look like the GCM predictions or the scary cherry-picked-proxy+corrupted-GISS chart keeps getting bigger and bigger.

Actually I think I found a major flaw in the GCMs that GCM creator Gary Strand tried to hand-wave away over at Climate Audit.

Seems that GCMs dont include leap days. They assume every year is 365 days long. So what, you say? Well all these GCMs are projecting what the temps will be like in the year 2100, but over a century the models are producing a drift of 25 degrees in polar precession that is equal to 2000 years of polar precession under Malenkovitch Cycles. Thus a GCM purporting to show a warming of 4 degrees over the period of 2000-2100 AD actually is showing that warming from 100 AD to 2100 AD.

[TallDave]

More scientific nails in the coffin:

Climate change modeling is “fundamentally wrong,” cannot explain half of past warming.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/15/m ... ever-mind/


The CO2 sensitivity in GCMs is too high, because the aeorosol cooling they offset is up to 40% too high.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/15/9373/#more-9373


AGW as espoused by the IPCC is quickly joining the heliocentric model in the ashbin of science.

[MSimon]

Don't you mean geocentric?

[TallDave]

D'oh! Yes. I wrote Ptolemaic, then decided that was too obscure.

[KitemanSA]

Don't you mean geocentric?

He shouldn't!!
The heliocentric model of the universe has also been scrapped, and almost at the same time as the geocentric. At this stage, I am not quite sure what has replaced it. The omni-centric? The supercluster centric? What is the center of the universe?

[pfrit]

Don't you mean geocentric?

He shouldn't!!
The heliocentric model of the universe has also been scrapped, and almost at the same time as the geocentric. At this stage, I am not quite sure what has replaced it. The omni-centric? The supercluster centric? What is the center of the universe?

"No-Objective-Frame-Of-Reference"-centric possibly?

[KitemanSA]

"No-Objective-Frame-Of-Reference"-centric possibly?

The NOFORcentric model. Hmmm, has a certain ring to it, no?

[MSimon]

"No-Objective-Frame-Of-Reference"-centric possibly?

The NOFORcentric model. Hmmm, has a certain ring to it, no?

Reminds me of a certain government classification as in Confidential, Secret, Top Secret, Bigoted. ;-)

[Betruger]

Cybernetics by Weiner is very good.

Excellent book.. Thanks a lot! Dunno how it wasn't ever recommended to me before, anywhere or by anyone.