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

Post Reply New Topic

You are not even close to qualified to make that assessment. I have much more relevant knowledge than you in this area, and I am nowhere near qualified to assess the research being done in the field. Leave the science to the scientists.

My understanding of the situation is that if this increased water coverage area comes from the melting of the ice caps, then in fact the albedo of the Earth diminishes, leading to the planet as a whole retaining greater heat from sunlight.

Correct me if I'm misunderstanding this, but doesn't the fact that the researchers are adding the same amount to every year they've measured (including the past years, presumably) just reset the zero point, as opposed to altering the amount of change that is happening?

Unless I misread, the continental shift for which they are correcting is an ongoing process, so the amount changes by an infinitesimal amount each year.

Scientists are more confident than ever about man-made global warming: http://www.npr.org/2011/06/21/137309964 ... t=1&f=1025

Meanwhile, the American public is less confident about that. All is part of an ongoing plan to make science unamerican.

This isn't really in response to either of you, but I would be curious to hear your thoughts on ... well, my thoughts.

The way I understand it can be explained through the following analogy:

There are two brothers, one is older (and taller), and one is younger (and shorter).

The younger brother is growing at a faster rate than the older brother. Last year, the younger brother was as tall as his brother's shoulder. This year, he has grown one inch relative to his brother's shoulder. So, we can say his height is 1" greater than it was last year relative to his brother's shoulder.

But, during the previous year, the taller brother grew 1/10". So, in absolute terms, the younger brother grew 1.1" - but we can only know that because we have independent information about the rate of growth of the taller brother.

The first method is the one the lawyer is saying should be used (ie - sea level relative to the coast), whereas what the scientists reported as the adjusted numbers is more along the lines of the second method (ie - seal levels as they would be if we removed the variability in size/configuration of the geologic "container" holding the oceans). Both are correct in their own ways.

(My analogy is not perfect in that, in the case of sea levels, we are not dealing with one measurement (ie - water depth) - rather the water depth is a function of the changing total volume of water in the oceans and changing bathymetry)

That's a good analogy. However, I doubt any of the people who need that analogy in order to understand this non-issue would be willing to pay attention long enough to follow it. As soon as they realize what your point is, the reasoning centers of their brain will shut down and they will start shouting "right-wing good, left-wing bad!"

While when something like climategate happens, it kinda destroys the scientists credibility.

@ cave_canem

Your analogy would work if all the ice was on land, which it isn't. When water freezes it expands so arguably when an iceberg melts the amount of volume the water takes up actually has decreased, or remained about the same.

Furthermore, while you can argue that the ends up being more water in the ocean, the effects are not as drastic as scientists have been portraying them to be. Any adjustment actually would have to be subtracting from their results not adding to them, in order to take into account the ocean basins are increasing in size.

Then, you have to take into account the massive amount of cooling that would occur due to ice melting, finally there have been periods on this planet that were warmer than it is present day.

Yes, when the America mainstream media uses its BS-creating super powers to manipulate the minds of the American public by exploiting their lack of understanding about science, it "destroys" the scientists' credibility towards the American public.

However, that's the American media and public fault, not scientists'.


I can't help but notice that you have ignored this thread: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt159889.html. In fact, whenever you say 'Climategate', it destroys any credibility you may have towards anybody that is at least familiar to the topic.

@ Vexcalibur
If it wasn't for Obama's politicized DoJ, some of these scientists would be facing criminal charges right now. I also had an internship at Goddard in 2010, so I managed to hear about some of the scientists there being furious about other scientists doctoring their data and as a result the scientists at Goddard were having their credibility questioned as well.

Here is a man who claims to be scientifically educated and yet is several centuries behind the times in understanding of basic physical principles. Are we really expected to believe you are qualified to critically examine cutting-edge research in so complicated a field as climatology?


The effects are different than the ones you falsely imagine the scientists to be portraying.


No, it wouldn't. If they wanted the measurement that you seem to want (of sea level measured against the coast) they would simply ignore the effect of ocean basin size, except perhaps to consider it in projections of future changes.


You really don't think they consider that?


So? There have also been periods when this planet was colder. And periods when oxygen levels in the atmosphere were far too low to sustain aerobic life. The fact that something has occurred before, does not necessarily mean we want it to happen again.

I'm talking about the Middle Ages, which were more than capable of supporting life. If you are really so concerned about global warming and CO2 levels how about you start a tree planting campaign.

They do, and that's the irony about that. Whenever scientists consider these external factors that may affect trends, they need to "adjust the data" to avoid those factors, but of course, some people are quick to rush into thinking that they adjusted the data to make a false conclusion.

No, they wouldn't.

Stop... being...so...full of crap. This is probably in your top 5 most ridiculous claim ever. If you actually think the reason the scientists didn't face criminal charges is that the neo-con in office helped them rather than there actually not being anything that would deserve criminal charges (even if that horrible lie that 'climategate' is happened), then you are nuts. It is simple as that.

I can't help but notice that you have ignored this thread: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt159889.html.

Dude, I don't care what they say if they have absolutely no credibility. The charge is they fudged their numbers, which means all their models, all their analysis, etc. is in doubt.

It's more complicated than that, because while the land is rising, the sea floor is sinking.