Climate Science : Where The Error Is Larger Than The Trend

Sea level is measured very precisely by satellites, with the error often larger than the measured trend. And when they are done making their bogus calculations, they tack on the completely fraudulent global isostatic adjustment (GIA) – for extra propaganda value.

Global mean sea level results

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Climate Science : Where The Error Is Larger Than The Trend

  1. Gator says:

    Post modern climate science is rife with this kind of crap. Dr Frank explains how cloud error in models is 140 times greater than the signal grantologists are attempting to discern.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/22/the-needle-in-the-haystack-pat-franks-devastating-expose-of-climate-model-error/

  2. Louis Hooffstetter says:

    Tony, you are spot on about this.
    Until we have decades of GPS data on crustal movement from Continuously Operating Reference Stations (or CORS) to analyze, there is simply no way to accurately measure how much the crust is moving up or down at any given location. And any global isostatic adjustment (GIA) number calculated by a legitimate scientist would be a swag (a scientific wild ass guess) at best. But ‘climate scientists’ love the GIA because it allows them to plug in whatever number makes their sea level projections look good while passing it off as a ‘scientific’ adjustment.

    • tonyheller says:

      Regardless of the accuracy of their estimates, adding the GIA on to the sea level rise rate is the accounting equivalent of counting a liability as an asset.

  3. steve case says:

    The web page for Colorado University’s Sea Level Research Group
    http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
    has been down for some time now.

    If it comes up for you let me know.

  4. Michael Jones says:

    Reminds me of an old engineering joke: when your error bars exceed the dynamic range of the system, it’s probably time to stop taking measurements.

  5. An Inquirer says:

    I do not understand the concern here. Apparently, in one small area, UCB is saying that the error is bigger than the trend. However, in the vast majority of the world, the trend is substantially larger than the estimated error.

    I would be quite concerned if that area (of error > trend) accounted for the bulk of the world-wide increase, but that does not seem to be the case.

  6. An Inquirer says:

    I do not understand the concern here. Apparently, in one small area, UCB is saying that the error is bigger than the trend. However, in the vast majority of the world, the trend is substantially larger than the estimated error.

    I would be quite concerned if that area (of error > trend) accounted for the bulk of the world-wide increase, but that does not seem to be the case.

    • Superchunk says:

      I know nothing about this, but I’ll take crack at it. The global error appears to be around 3mm. The global trend seems to be around 1-3mm. So the error is at least as big as the trend globally.

    • David A says:

      Not accurate. Also the trend in the gauges, adjusted for land movement, is 1.5 to 2 mm per year, much less then what satellites show!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *