Comments on: Oceangate: sea levels proven to have fallen for past six years http://www.climategate.com/sea-levels-proven-to-have-fallen-for-past-six-years Anthropogenic Global Warming, history's biggest scam Fri, 12 Mar 2010 11:21:11 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: 40ag.com http://www.climategate.com/sea-levels-proven-to-have-fallen-for-past-six-years/comment-page-1#comment-6335 40ag.com Mon, 01 Mar 2010 18:10:04 +0000 http://www.climategate.com/?p=4236#comment-6335 [...] scientists from 50 research and operational agencies from 26 countries have proved that world sea levels have fallen for the past six [...] [...] scientists from 50 research and operational agencies from 26 countries have proved that world sea levels have fallen for the past six [...]

]]> By: Graham http://www.climategate.com/sea-levels-proven-to-have-fallen-for-past-six-years/comment-page-1#comment-4955 Graham Fri, 19 Feb 2010 19:49:08 +0000 http://www.climategate.com/?p=4236#comment-4955 "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. “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.

]]> By: David Reese http://www.climategate.com/sea-levels-proven-to-have-fallen-for-past-six-years/comment-page-1#comment-4934 David Reese Fri, 19 Feb 2010 17:37:09 +0000 http://www.climategate.com/?p=4236#comment-4934 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. 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.

]]> By: Wayne Delbeke http://www.climategate.com/sea-levels-proven-to-have-fallen-for-past-six-years/comment-page-1#comment-4886 Wayne Delbeke Fri, 19 Feb 2010 07:27:36 +0000 http://www.climategate.com/?p=4236#comment-4886 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. 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.

]]> By: methinks http://www.climategate.com/sea-levels-proven-to-have-fallen-for-past-six-years/comment-page-1#comment-4814 methinks Thu, 18 Feb 2010 21:31:46 +0000 http://www.climategate.com/?p=4236#comment-4814 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. 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.

]]> By: David Reese http://www.climategate.com/sea-levels-proven-to-have-fallen-for-past-six-years/comment-page-1#comment-4798 David Reese Thu, 18 Feb 2010 19:08:38 +0000 http://www.climategate.com/?p=4236#comment-4798 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/ 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/

]]> By: itsfaircomment.com http://www.climategate.com/sea-levels-proven-to-have-fallen-for-past-six-years/comment-page-1#comment-4772 itsfaircomment.com Thu, 18 Feb 2010 15:00:43 +0000 http://www.climategate.com/?p=4236#comment-4772 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 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

]]> By: noddy http://www.climategate.com/sea-levels-proven-to-have-fallen-for-past-six-years/comment-page-1#comment-4768 noddy Thu, 18 Feb 2010 14:10:13 +0000 http://www.climategate.com/?p=4236#comment-4768 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. 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.

]]> By: Stuart Greig http://www.climategate.com/sea-levels-proven-to-have-fallen-for-past-six-years/comment-page-1#comment-4743 Stuart Greig Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:58:49 +0000 http://www.climategate.com/?p=4236#comment-4743 ... 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. … 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.

]]> By: ADE http://www.climategate.com/sea-levels-proven-to-have-fallen-for-past-six-years/comment-page-1#comment-4737 ADE Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:13:16 +0000 http://www.climategate.com/?p=4236#comment-4737 Think the last few months could be skewing the data slightly,although the trend is "down" Think the last few months could be skewing the data slightly,although the trend is “down”

]]>