re: You just couldnt make this stuff up. NASA: Sea levels have been falling for two years

quote:

---

In 1920 and 1950 there were large but temporary jumps in stations recording morning temperatures.

---

There has been a lot of discussion about intelligence and IQ testing. And I bet all of those who have an issue that an adjustment is unacceptable and basically scientific malfeasance, wouldn't have an issue with intelligence testing.

Yet, I wonder if they know that the tests (and all the other tests like SAT) goes through stages of item parameterization, growth smoothing, equating, raw score adjustments, which take a normalized and standardized score that is arbitrarily set to a specific scale and there for a single subtest.

Then those scores are aggregated in some way, sometimes weighted by their g loading, and put through some of the similar adjusting, to create another normalized and standardized composite score, usually a standard score with a mean of 100 and standard deviations of 15.

Because if they have a problem with climate adjustments, then I can't imagine how they could value an IQ test, or any test of a latent variable. Personally, I have no problem with either, but they need to be reevaluated with more data or tests and advancements in measurement, theory, modeling, etc.

quote:

---

I hate to be the one to tell you this but you're not a conservative.

---

So, it is all-in or nothing?

Read George Will.

Falling or rising? I can't keep up.

quote:

---

Falling or rising? I can't keep up.

---

It naturally goes up and down over time...just like temperatures do.

quote:

---

Kinda looks like its fallen for a couple of years a few times in the past and then continued to go up.

---

quote:

---

Talk about cherry picking your data.

---

Indeed!



*Note: ordinate measures in the Post-Glacial graph are charted in meters, not mm.

quote:

---

Forget about the adjustments, do you see anything different about the graphs themselves in the title area?

---

Well yeah haha.

But I just come into these things with the assumption people are just trying to shotgun the talking points they have accumulated up over the years to rationalize their climate change denial. So I expect people to do things like use temp graphs for sea level rises. Because it’s not about discussing this “thing” it’s about advancing the climate change denial argument.

And since I suspected you were already going to point that bit out, I thought I’d take a stab at explaining the probalems with raw data. Why it gets adjusted.

Of course, all this just over shadows what is really some pretty basic science. When you release GHG’s into an atmosphere it traps more long-form radiation from a sun. Cause and effect. Greater temperatures lead to other phenomena. Some of those GHG’s get trapped in oceans, which has an effect there as well. We can measure exactly how much CO2 has been put into the atmosphere, estimate how much we put out, look at the historical record for even longer trends and clues what a planet under certain atmospheric conditions looked like.

And I think people pushing this stuff don’t really get what they are suggesting. If we are pumping out GHG’s at this quantity, at this frequency, measured with comparable increases in the atmosphere and the ocean, and temperatures aren’t rising, you are suggesting a profound re-writing of core foundations of atmospheric science. And with extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence. Which based on the peer reviewed consensus, they do not have.

quote:

---

So again, I'm not really sure why you brought it up.

---

First, I didn't "bring it up." You did. Second, one can comb the net and find thousands of coastal changes mistakenly misattributed to sea-level rise. That includes claims regarding the La Coastline.

quote:

---

Lol if the best cherry left to pick is a two-year pause

---

If you want the facts, then read this
LINK

EIR: Here, over the last few days, there was a grouping that sent out a power-point presenta-tion on melting glaciers, and how this is going to raise sea level and create all kinds of problems.

Mörner: The only place that has that potential is Greenland, and Greenland east is not melting; Greenland west, the Disco Bay is melting, but it has been melting for 200 years, at least, and the rate of melting decreased in the last 50-100 years. So, that's another falsification.

But more important, in 5,000 years, the whole of the Northern Hemisphere experienced warming, the Holocene Warm Optimum, and it was 2.5 degrees warmer than today. And still, no problem with Antarctica, or with Greenland; still, no higher sea level.

EIR: These scare stories are being used for political purposes.
Mörner: Yes. Again, this is for me, the line of demarcation between the meteorological community and us: They work with computers; we geologists work with observations, and the observations do not fit with these scenarios. So what should you change? We cannot change observations, so we have to change the scenarios!

Instead of doing this, they give an endless amount of money to the side which agrees with the IPCC. The European Community, which has gone far in this thing: If you want a grant for a research pro-ject in climatology, it is written into the document that there must be a focus on global warming. All the rest of us, we can never get a coin there, because we are not fulfilling the basic obligations. That is really bad, because then you start asking for the answer you want to get. That's what dictator-ships did, autocracies. They demanded that scientists produce what they wanted.

quote:

---

If you want the facts, then read this

---

I honestly think that you are highlighted the bigger problem with it all than the problem you think you're exposing.

Looking to Mörner, he was critical the sea level rising predictions. He has his methods, analyses, and interpretations which included criticisms of the other side's. And they had the same, including criticisms right back. And you know what that reminds me of? Science in every field, discipline, and field of study. And it's important and valuable.

And the thing is, scientists often disagree and have conflicting theories and results. Yet, because they are studying specific components of a larger issue, they often agree about many of the other components and the larger issues in general.

For example, if we're both studying weight loss, and I'm arguing exercise is most important and you're arguing diet is most important, we are clearly disagreeing, yet we both the think diet and exercise is most important.

As it relates to climate change, the deniers (not skeptics) take the researchers who disagree with some specific factor or the strength of some argument, they are then used as evidence of the complete denial of it all. But often times (like Judith Curry) they actually believe in the theory in general, but are just displaying healthy skepticism or disagreement.

And it wasn't always that way. It's gone from healthy skepticism, similar to those skeptic scientists, to outright denial. And the ridiculousness is evident in the fact that the skeptical scientists that they're using to support the denial, are far closer to the side their arguing against than their own.

There used to be really interesting debate here with posters arguing about specific scientific points. Now we have the likes of Robbbobb and leagueChamps, at least one of which doesn't believe in evolution either and neither of whom seem to have an even rudimentary understanding of the very basics of science, taking over scientific arguments.

quote:

---

What is the most telling signal about people like him, is their refusal to submit peer reviewed papers to credible scientific journals.

---

Something tells me your bias kept you from reading the hacked emails in this regard. Skeptics have been targeted to deny peer review, deny entry into appropriate journals, and any journals that allowed their entries were targeted to have their board replaced

Fascinating isn't that people searching for the truth, have become so vicious to the opposition. What are they afraid of?

quote:

---

In March 2004, Jones wrote to ­Professor Michael Mann, a leading climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University, saying that he had "recently rejected two papers [one for the Journal of ­Geophysical Research and one for Geophysical Research Letters] from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised".

---

quote:

---

Dr Myles Allen, a climate modeller at the University of Oxford and Professor Hans von Storch, a climate scientist at the Institute for Coastal Research, in Geesthacht, Germany signed a joint column in Nature when the email hacking story broke, in which they said that "no grounds have arisen to doubt the validity of the thermometer-based temperature record since it began in about 1850." But that argument is harder to make if such evidence, flawed though it might be, is actively being kept out of the journals.

---

quote:

---

In another email exchange CRU scientist Dr Keith Briffa initiates what looks like an attempt to have a paper rejected. In June 2003, as an editor of an unnamed journal, Briffa emailed fellow tree-ring researcher Edward Cook, a researcher at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York, saying: "Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting [an unnamed paper] – to ­support Dave Stahle's and really as soon as you can. Please."

---

quote:

---

In March 2003, Mann discussed encouraging colleagues to "no longer submit [papers] to, or cite papers in" Climate Research. He was angry about that journal's publication of a series of sceptical papers "that couldn't get published in a reputable journal", according to Mann. His anger at the journal had evidently been building for some time, but was focused in 2003 on a paper published in January that year and written by the Harvard astrophysicists Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas.

---

quote:

---

"This was the danger of always criticising the sceptics for not publishing in the peer-reviewed literature. Obviously, they found a solution to that – take over a journal." But Mann had a solution. "I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. ­Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues … to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board."

---