Please Hit

Folks, This is a Free Site and will ALWAYS stay that way. But the only way I offset my expenses is through the donations of my readers. PLEASE Consider Making a Donation to Keep This Site Going. SO HIT THE TIP JAR (it's on the left-hand column).

Monday, August 29, 2011

Warming Scientists On Suicide Watch?-The Global Sea Level is Shrinking



One of the big threats from the global warming moonbat types is that a rise in temperature will melt the polar ice caps causing the oceans to rise, with the cataclysmic result of skyscrapers being under water.  And boy oh boy, if you think that the commute into Manhattan is bad now....just wait.

There is only one problem with this scenario,  Mother Nature isn't being cooperative.  The latest data shows sea level falling during the past year. Of course one year does not make a trend, but the data makes sense of you look at the past century of data.

It is true that sea level has risen during the 20th century and probably well before that.  Scientists estimate that sea level has increased by 7 inches during the 2oth century.

The climate change hoaxers use computer models to predict that sea levels would rise anywhere from 15 inches to 2o feet because of global warming in the 21st century (the consensus number is closer to 3 feet).

But Mother Nature was never good at computer science.  Satellite data proved that the first decade of the 21st century sea level grew by only 0.83 inches (a pace of just 8 inches for the entire century). What's even worse (for the global warming hoaxers) there has been no rise since 2006.  Now I know that some Democrats believe that Obama is a miracle worker, but even the the crazies at the Daily Kos would admit that controlling sea level is way above his pay grade. To "fudge" the data they didn't agree with, the scientists at the University of Colorado’s NASA-funded Sea Level Research Group did what any other self-respecting cult members would do, they simply added .3 millimeters per year to its Global Mean Sea Level Time Series. That way they could report that the sea level rise was accelerating, instead of  what was actually happening--decelerating.

Now, new data has been released from NASA comparing the summer of 2011 to that of 2010.
The global sea level this summer is a quarter of an inch lower than last summer, according to NASA scientists, in sharp contrast to the gradual rise the ocean has experienced in recent years.

The change stems from two strong weather cycles over the Pacific Ocean — El Niño and La Niña — which shifted precipitation patterns, according to scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. The two cycles brought heavy rains to Brazil and Amazon, along with drought to the southern United States.
Climate scientist Josh Willis, who also works at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, warned that this water will eventually return to the ocean, and the long-term trend of rising sea levels will continue.
But it will continue to slow down unless the insist on adding their little .3 millimeter fudge.

“What this show is the impact La Niña and El Niño can have on global rainfall,” he said in an interview, adding scientists need to get a better sense of ice sheet dynamics before they can offer a more precise estimate of future sea level rise. “We really have a lot left to understand before we can do better.”
I would agree with that, they have lots to understand, including whether man-made global warming is real or not. Another thing they need to understand is that computer  models are nice, but they are based on biased assumptions.  There is nothing like sticking your finger out the window (or using satellite data) and trying to determine what the real numbers are.

Then again they don't want to do that, because every time they look at the real numbers it proves their computer models wrong.


Enhanced by Zemanta

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

...they simply added .3 millimeters per year to its Global Mean Sea Level Time Series. That way they could report that the sea level rise was accelerating, instead of what was actually happening--decelerating.

If I remember my calculus, adding a linear function of time has no effect on acceleration because
d²/dt²(at+b)=0. (Here, a = 0.3 mm/yr).