Research Center Under Fire for 'Adjusted' Sea-Level Data

Post Reply New Topic

Is climate change raising sea levels, as Al Gore has argued -- or are climate scientists doctoring the data?

The University of Colorado’s Sea Level Research Group decided in May to add 0.3 millimeters -- or about the thickness of a fingernail -- every year to its actual measurements of sea levels, sparking criticism from experts who called it an attempt to exaggerate the effects of global warming.

"Gatekeepers of our sea level data are manufacturing a fictitious sea level rise that is not occurring," said James M. Taylor, a lawyer who focuses on environmental issues for the Heartland Institute.

Steve Nerem, the director of the widely relied-upon research center, told FoxNews.com that his group added the 0.3 millimeters per year to the actual sea level measurements because land masses, still rebounding from the ice age, are rising and increasing the amount of water that oceans can hold.

"We have to account for the fact that the ocean basins are actually getting slightly bigger... water volume is expanding," he said, a phenomenon they call glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA).

Taylor calls it tomfoolery.

"There really is no reason to do this other than to advance a political agenda," he said.

Climate scientist John Christy, a professor at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, said that the amount of water in the ocean and sea level were two different things.

"To me… sea level rise is what's measured against the actual coast," he told FoxNews.com. "That's what tells us the impact of rising oceans."

Taylor agreed.

"Many global warming alarmists say that vast stretches of coastline are going to be swallowed up by the sea. Well, that means we should be talking about sea level, not about global water volume."

In e-mails with FoxNews.com, Nerem indicated that he considered "sea level rise" to be the same thing as the amount of water in the ocean.

"If we correct our data to remove [the effect of rising land], it actually does cause the rate of sea level (a.k.a. ocean water volume change) rise to be bigger," Nerem wrote. The adjustment is trivial, and not worth public attention, he added.

"For the layperson, this correction is a non-issue and certainly not newsworthy… [The] effect is tiny -- only 1 inch over 100 years, whereas we expect sea level to rise 2-4 feet."

But Taylor said that the correction seemed bigger when compared with actual sea level increases.

"We’ve seen only 7 inches of sea level rise in the past century and it hasn’t sped up this century. Compared to that, this would add nearly 20 percent to the sea level rise. That's not insignificant," he told FoxNews.com.

Nerem said that the research center is considering compromising on the adjustment.

"We are considering putting both data sets on our website -- a GIA-corrected dataset, as well as one without the GIA correction," he said.

Christy said that would be a welcome change.

"I would encourage CU to put the sea level rate [with] no adjustment at the top of the website," he said.

Taylor’s takeaway: Be wary of sea level rise estimates.

"When Al Gore talks about Manhattan flooding this century, and 20 feet of sea level rise, that’s simply not going to happen. If it were going to happen, he wouldn’t have bought his multi-million dollar mansion along the coast in California."

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/06/17/research-center-under-fire-for-adjusted-sea-level-data

Here's another one about how natural geologic movements are preventing any sea rise, much less the apocalyptic sea level rises global warming alarmists are predicting in some places.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/19/sea-level-rise-global-warming

Exactly the kind of bogus doctoring of the data that makes us have to put quote marks around the "science" in climate "science". Scientists ought to report the data honestly and leave policy to policy makers.

i agree, though i still think global warming is an issue, only the degree can be discussed.

You're not fooling anyone, Johnny Boy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute

The Heartland Institute is a libertarian American public policy think tank based in Chicago, Illinois which advocates free market policies.

In the 1990s, the group worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question the science linking secondhand smoke to health risks, and to lobby against government public health reforms. More recently, the Institute has focused on questioning the scientific consensus on climate change, and has sponsored meetings of climate change skeptics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute#Funding

Oil and gas companies have contributed to the Heartland Institute, including over $600,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005. Greenpeace reported that the Heartland Institute received almost $800,000 from ExxonMobil. By 2008, ExxonMobil had stopped funding to Heartland.[dubious] Joseph Bast, president of the Heartland Institute, argued that ExxonMobil was simply distancing itself from Heartland out of concern for its public image.

The Heartland Institute has also received funding and support from the tobacco company Philip Morris. The Independent reported that Heartland's receipt of donations from Exxon and Philip Morris indicates a "direct link"..."between anti-global warming sceptics funded by the oil industry and the opponents of the scientific evidence showing that passive smoking can damage people's health."

Why do you always do this? Have you no shame? Think you can just slink off into the shadows when you're called out on your utter dishonesty?

Remember this?? It was only a week ago!

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt164424.html

I remember that post. There is this thing called real life though, so sometimes I don't have time to sit and argue for it's own sake, and some posts have to sometimes be left abandoned and unchallenged in order to take care of things that make a difference in my life.

In this case, you can try to destroy the researchers credibility by playing guilty by association, but the concept being put forth is something that most 6 year olds can usually grasp that a container with a bigger volume can hold more water than a smaller one without spilling over. If the continents rise, that raises the current sea level line above the water line. The displacement of magma from under the ocean floor to under the continents lowers the sea floor. Thus, you have a bigger container for your arctic melting (if any) to fill. If they have to add water that isn't there to their calculations to fudge their data to make their predicted water line as high a they originally wanted, that's not honest science and shouldn't be funded by taxpayers.

It's just like "climategate". People that don't understand science or the methods of professionals in the field claim that something dishonest is going on, just because they lack the capacity to comprehend it. Your intellectual deficiency does not extend to the University of Colorado’s Sea Level Research Group, thank god.

The quotation marks should have been around fire.

Like this:

Research Center under 'Fire' for adjusted sea-level data.

Lack of understanding of how adjusting data works when doing research is so lame.

Well, he did say:

the concept being put forth is something that most 6 year olds can usually grasp

Most but not all six year olds can grasp it. So either he's one of the unlucky few people with a six year old's understanding of the world that just can't seem to wrap their heads around it... or maybe he has a five year old's grasp on things.

Do you have a source for this story that is not affiliated with NewsCorp?

It's not that i don't trust rupert murdoch - i don't - but he hates it when people "steal" his content, so i refrain from consuming his content.

At any rate, IMHO, sea level = the level of the sea. Not the level the sea would have if the land mass hadn't changed.

I absolutely LOVE how the article pretends to be a reasonable and thoughtful reflection on whether Al Gore's proposal is correct.

As if Al Gore is relevant to any discussion about anything ever.

Allegedly rising sea-levels are a liberal conspiracy designed to undermine the economy.

Looks more like you do not understand science nor do you understand academic integrity. You should never doctor your data in science, and John_Browning is right to point that out. If these scientists were students they would be facing expulsion from the University (well maybe not since it is promoting a leftist cause). Does that compute as to how serious the situation is.

Always time for a fake controversy, huh?