Feb
Oceangate: sea levels proven to have fallen for past six years
Independent bloggers have found that by using the Pacific Marine Atlas program to plot data from the entire ocean network of automatic measuring stations, there is was actually a downtrend in global sea levels over the past six years.
The Hockey Schtick blog made it’s astonishing discovery after analyzing the full 6-year dataset of ocean levels from January 31, 2004 to January 31, 2010.
By using the data from the ‘ARGO’ global network of sea level measurements it was found that ocean levels have actually been decreasing and not rising, contrary to global warming forecasters. This latest revelation is wholly contrary to claims by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC has continually argued that human emissions of carbon dioxide were causing the polar ice caps and thousands of glaciers around the world to melt so that such warming would cause global sea levels to rise, according to the IPCC’s 35 SRES scenarios, by up to 0.5 meters (18 inches) this century.
These new revelations are bound to cause further dismay to climate alarmists reeling after a flood of scandals suggesting either corruption or incompetence by the IPCC in gathering climate data and projecting future trends.
The ‘ARGO’ project was set up in 2004 and is a collaboration between 50 research and operational agencies from 26 countries, with the United States contributing over half the total funding (as of December 2004). ARGO is a component of the Integrated Ocean Observing System and consists of a large collection of small, drifting oceanic robotic probes deployed worldwide. The data are transmitted to scientists on shore via satellite. There have been 3,198 of such probes set around the world’s oceans since November 2007.
The probes float as deep as 2 km ( 1.2 miles). Once every 10 days, the probes surface, measuring conductivity and temperature profiles to the surface. From these salinity and density can also be calculated. The data collected are freely available to everyone, without restrictions.
Further information about the ARGO Project may be found in this PDF.
I wonder whether they forgot to, or were unable to tamper with these like all the land based METS?
oh no John. They tried to adjust the cold away.
The problem is, judging by this new analysis, it keeps getting colder.
Oh my. You know this disrupts the “pipeline”, as in the global warming that is just sitting out there in the pipeline, waiting to get us.
You’d be surprised how many supposedly sane people believe in the heat monster in the pipeline myth.
Another large nail into the already well nailed IPCC coffin.
Now we wait with bated breath for more info. re ARGOS and also the CLOUD experiment at CERN which will help fill the gaping holes in our knowledge of climate physics.
Oh, I forgot, the science is settled.
http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/en/Research/CLOUD-en.html
As far as I can recall, shifts in sea level over the period of a few years is rather like comparing weather to climate. Unless someone can point to literature that suggests otherwise, I’d say let’s see what happens to sea levels over at least a decade before crying foul.
Having said that, this data certainly doesn’t paint an “alarming” picture like some are trying to do, that’s for certain.
“I’d say let’s see what happens to sea levels over at least a decade before crying foul.”
Good idea. Drop tools. Lick wounds. Get on with agendas that really matter. Regroup 10 years from now. Reassess trends.
Think the last few months could be skewing the data slightly,although the trend is “down”
… given the assertion that the sealevel is rising because the volume of water is increasing then there should be no ‘fluctuations’ that cause measurements below levels of the previous year.
So… the January 2010 figures showing a big leap in temperature are completely bogus? And a bunch of amateur sleutherists were able to trump the IPCC. Give yourselves a big pat on the back. Although I am confused by the Chinese saying that sea levels were up by 113 mms this yar. I thought they were on our side.
Personally, I think it’s the power of prayer that’s keeping the temperatures down, and letting me drive my pickup. Not switching to a Prius ever ever.
Its not the only thing that’s sinking…
Thursday, 18 February 2010
UN climate chief quits
Yahoo/AP: Yvo de Boer, head of the UN’s climate change convention, will resign as of July 1, his office announced on Thursday.”
blog link:
http://itsfaircomment-climategate.blogspot.com/2010/02/un-climate-chief-quits.html
Beware of Bogus Statistics, or the ‘Alarmist Chicken Littles’ will have an opportunity to cry Fowl!
The negative slope that shows up on the chart is a statistically arbitrary slope (and completely misleading) that is a function of the starting point and end point. For example if the trend were calculated using data starting at 7/04 the slope would be a positive 0.0067 mm/yr.
Calculating a trend on a sine curve that covers one full cycle will yield a negative slope of -0.95/cycle (where the peak to peak amplitude of the sine curve has a value of 1). It is negative because the first half of a sine wave is positive while the second half is negative. Duh.
Calculating a trend on a sine curve that covers six full cycles will yield a negative slope of -0.0265/cycle. Using six full cycles with a peak to peak amplitude of 6 mm (similar to the chart above) would yield a ‘false’ slope of -0.159 mm/yr. On the same sine wave, shifting the starting points by 1/2 cycle would give a ‘false’ positive slope of +0.159 mm/yr. Aren’t statistics fun?
A better estimate would come from starting the trend at July 04 and running through December 09. This would have a full negative half cycle on both ends of the selected period. As a result, a more believable trend of -0.0125 mm/yr.
Statistics are not only fun but useful. Now you know why most alarmists like to start their series of temperature data at a down turn.
A plot of sea level information can be seen at the following link. It does indeed show a flattening of trend in recent years.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
Given the large seasonal phenomena involved in these measurements it seems better to begin and end on the same day of the year rather than finding where the “sinewave” meets up to come up with an arbitrary starting point that is in the NH summer rather than the NH winter and ends in the NH winter. Better yet, do the analysis walking forward on each successive day of the year plotted to the same successive day of the year & overlay/average all the trendlines.
A continuous sine wave (or cosine wave) mathematically has a trend of zero, by definition. If you take a trend line through a limited portion of only ‘n’ (where ‘n’ is an integer) complete cycles you will get a trend of zero only if you start at the maximum of a cycle or the minimum of a cycle. If you take a trend through ‘n’ complete cycles and your starting point is at a point in the cycle where the value is rising, you wil get an arbitrarily negative trend and vise versa.
If you use ‘n.5′ cycles (where ‘n.5′ is an integer plus 1/2) then you will get a trend of zero only if you start at a point where the curve crosses the average value (rising or falling).
(Make a sketch and you will see why this is obvious)
Applying the ‘n.5′ approach through 5.5 cycles of your chart yields a trend on -0.0125 mm/yr.
Given that the argo buoys show that the top 2 km of ocean have been inexplicably cooling, a small drop in sea level should be expected due to the contraction of water. But the system is so complex that some places are increasing while some are decreasing. Right now, I suspect no one really knows. Rewrite the algorithms, get a different answer.
[...] scientists from 50 research and operational agencies from 26 countries have proved that world sea levels have fallen for the past six [...]