Check out this sea level graph from CSIRO, which is constructed to deceive the reader.
:: Sea-level Rise :: CSIRO & ACECRC
Note that the satellite trend since 1992 is much steeper than the tide gauge trend, but they did two tricks to fool gullible people into believing otherwise.
- They truncated the tide gauge data at 2009, during a small uptick.
- They smeared a blue error bar above the satellite data, and did not provide an error bar for the satellite trend.
Their intent was create the impression that sea level rise rates have increased since 1992, which is not true and a blatant attempt to deceive the reader.
h/t to T.O.O. for being one of the gullible people who fell for their trick. Here is the graph with the trends projected to 2030. Also note that we are well below the 1930 to 1960 trend line.
Don’t both graphs show steady increase? I would have liked to see a moving average to decide whether or not the rate of increase is changing
I think you might want to take a closer look at the graph, Steve.
The tide gauge data runs contiguously with the satellite data up to 2010.
The absence of error bars for the satellite data implies only that they could be so narrow that they cannot be resolved on the scale of the graph, not that CSIRO is necessarily withholding them.
I cannot see any evidence for an attempt to deceive in this graph (although that doesn’t mean there isn’t any of course).
No it doesn’t.
The slope of the satellite data is much steeper than the slope of the tide gauge data. If they had of included the tide gauge data through 2012 this would be obvious – even to you.
“much” is a relative term. So how “much steeper” is the trend in the satellite data than the trend in the tide gauge data? Without getting hold of the actual data and performing a statistical analysis of it I cannot tell. Can you?
But just a cursory inspection of the graph with the aid of a ruler tells me that the difference between the two trends is something like 20mm of sea level rise over the 16 years between 1994 and 2010, which is a little over 1mm/year. It would take a little under a thousand years for the difference to accumulate to 1 metre at that rate. Is that something which they could start a world panic over? If this graph is yet another smoke and mirrors exercise of the warmist establishment as you are suggesting, it is the most pathetically amateurish one that I’ve ever seen.
40% steeper.
Steve
From inspection of the graph (with the aid of your construction lines):
Tide Gauge Data:
Sea level anomaly at start 1994 ? 160 mm;
Sea level anomaly at start 2010 ? 200 mm.
Therefore slope of trend ? (200 – 160)/(2010 – 1994) = 140/16 = 8.75 mm/year.
Satellite data:
Sea level anomaly at start 1994 ? 160 mm;
Sea level anomaly at start 2010 ? 210 mm.
Therefore slope of trend ? (210 – 160)/(2010 – 1994) = 150/16 = 9.375 mm/year.
Satellite trend/Tide gauge trend ? 9.375/8.75 = 1.07 = 107%.
Therefore the slope of the satellite trend is about 7% greater than the slope of the tide gauge trend.
Where have you got 40% from?
From the divergence in the mid 1990s to 2030, satellites up 70mm. Tide gauges up 50mm.
I’m really not interested in how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The point is that sea level rates have not accelerated.
I’m not interested in arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin either. To do so would be like arguing over details of the Emperor’s new clothes. That’s a waste of time when the suit of clothes is an illusion. So by all means make the difference between the two trends 40% if that is what you see.
I will not dispute your assertion that sea level rates have not accelerated in reality either. To my mind the notion of accelerating sea level rise is something of an illusion in itself since it is generally used in the global warming debate as a metric of the amount of water that’s in the sea. In fact it is not a valid metric though because sea level is only 1-dimensional whereas the sea is volumetric, ie. 3-dimensional. There is an invalid assumption implicit in this illusion, in that the shape of the solid surface that contains the sea is assumed to be unchanging, whereas we don’t know that to be so. Mere recordings of sea level do not take this factor into account explicitly. So that is where the basic smoke and mirrors are being done, in my view – in getting the public to accept 1-dimensional sea level rises as valid metrics of 3-dimensional sea volume increases when they are not.
However, having got the public to accept this basic illusion the master-spinners then have to make sure that their ‘records’ depict accelerating sea level rises regardless of what is happening in reality. Since they control all of the data-sources, including tide gauge readings, satellite readings and – most importantly – the computer-models that convert the raw point-sourced data into idealised global averages – this is easy for them to do so long as they can keep the process hidden in obscurity, like the printing of money. Then their only problem is to find ways to rationalize away any disparities that are found in their finished products – their graphs – and if that is not possible then to alter the graphs so as to bring the supposedly errant data into conformity with what they should be. But the question of what the data-items should be is ultimately unknowable because no-one has any means of comparing them directly with reality. Therefore they have a free hand.
So although I recognise that anything is possible, I would be surprised if the spuriousness of the 40% acceleration in the trend of putative sea level rises that you think you have found in that graph cannot be rationalized away somehow – perhaps on the basis of satellite readings being more accurate than tide gauge readings but the older tide gauge reading still being consistent with the new satellite readings because of the error-margins that are shown on the graph. But if it can’t be rationalized away and they are forced to change the graph, I think it is more likely that the “old” tide gauge readings would be changed to bring them into conformity with the “new” satellite readings rather than vice versa.
R Power said:
“…In fact it is not a valid metric though because sea level is only 1-dimensional whereas the sea is volumetric, ie. 3-dimensional…”
Also, there are several ways that the sea level at a particular point can rise: an increase in that volumetric value (more water in the sea), the land attached to the gauge is subsiding, or the “slosh” of the water levels.
See here for an interactive site showing “global” sea level rise: http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/
If it were true “global” rise, then all stations would be showing similar positive values.
So we can ask the “climate scientists” how, in a world of “increasing sea levels”, Kodiak Island AK is showing a NEGATIVE trend: “…The mean sea level trend is -10.42 mm/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 1.33 mm/year based on monthly mean sea level data from 1975 to 2006 which is equivalent to a change of -3.42 feet in 100 years…” (here’s another link to the Kodiak Island tidal gauge chart: http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.plots/567.png)
Or, Seldovia, AK at -9.45 mm/year; Nikiski, AK at -9.80 mm/year; Yakutat, AK at -11.54 mm/year – well, you get the point.
They only pick the places that show extreme POSITIVE trends, such as Grand Isle, LA – the mean sea level trend is 9.24 millimeters/year.
RE: R Power – “(200-160)/(2010 – 1994) = 140/16”
Check your math sir.
200-160 is NOT one hundred and forty,
200-160 = 40
R Power, There are other math errors in your calculation, but pointing out one should be enough incentive for you to rework.
Ben,
Thanks for pointing out my calculation errors. They were truly elementary and my only excuse for making them is that I posted my calculation in a hurry without having checked it first. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Having now corrected them all (I hope!) along the lines that you indicated I get the result that the slope of the satellite trend is about 25% greater than that of the tide gauge trend. This is more in line with Steve’s estimate of 40% of course, although it still leaves a 15% divergence between his estimate and mine. As both Steve and I have said we are not interested in how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, I do not think the difference is worth arguing about.
R Power,
Thanks for correcting the math.
The second difference between you and Steven is your basis.
You chose an absolute mm basis from 1994 to 2010.
Steven chose a delta(mm) basis from mid 1990s to 2030.
I humbly submit you are both correct, given the basis you have chosen.
I believe in this case, the rate of change is the correct basis when discussing trends.
The alarmist crowd is getting clumsy, obvious and desperate as nature refuses to to along with their scam.
time to move to high ground ASAP
I’m not in the least surprised, Their feral government employer’s trough is soon to have the tap substantially turned down and that will induce significant redundancies … 200 people out of one program alone is reported to be on the block, from memory its agriculture.
CSIRO has trashed its credibility years ago in its haste to gets its snout into the trough and its employees have involved themselves in the most unprofessional conduct, for example, in trying to have Dr de Freitas removed from his employment at the University of Auckland – shameful behavior! They will continue to compromise the standards of science of that once great institution to keep their snouts dipped into what will become a puddle of funding as a consequence of the feral government’s fiscal incompetence and it being removed from office in September this year.
Not only CSIRO losing people.
The Australian Bureau of Meteorology apparently has 150 climiate scientists on the payroll. Their positions will probably be reviewed in an across the board effort to control government spending post the election. They’ve been publishing so much gumpf, like papers on new colours for non existent temperature records, that they should get their CV’s ready, because they might well not fit in the new budget given to the BOM post the September Election.
Note also that the independents and Greens are agitating to move the Carbon Tax to an ETS before the election so that it is more difficult to repeal. They are simply sock puppets for the Carbon credit industry in the UK.
I was at the ocean yesterday watching waves and children on the beach.
I imagined the sea level 1 foot higher from where it was.
Nobody would even notice.
My hometown beach – Bar Beach, Newcastle, Australia.
I reckon 1 foot higher over 100 years would make no difference at all. In fact there are photos that show just that. According to tidal records, there has been almost no rise in sea level’s in NSW since records began. I’m sure all the beach house owners are selling up…..NOT.
Photo in 2010
http://kiallfrost.com.au/bar-beach-panoramic-landscape-photos-bar-beach-photo-newcastle-landscape-photos/
Photo in 1950
http://www.google.com.au/imgres?q=bar+beach+newcastle+1950&hl=en&biw=1680&bih=877&tbm=isch&tbnid=_q0kSY6qsQ7kQM:&imgrefurl=http://www.flickr.com/photos/uon/5463886828/&docid=jLF7v6du99GmsM&imgurl=http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5217/5463886828_77c1daf843_o.jpg&w=1761&h=1145&ei=pgN1Ua3bEKmSiQep74GgAg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=2&vpy=138&dur=2028&hovh=181&hovw=279&tx=136&ty=149&page=1&tbnh=152&tbnw=244&start=0&ndsp=45&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0,i:80
If the seal level was one foot higher here in Broome, lots of businesses would be underwater at high tide, Chinatown, Broome was built at the high tide mark for the Pearling Industry at the beginning of the 20th Century, and nothing has changed.
Broome, 2012 http://pindanpost.com/2012/04/10/biggest-broome-tides-for-2012/
Don’t forget GRACE has been used to adjust the sea level budget (which includes OHC) and is known to have problems, but the results fit the narrative so will take a long time to get it straightened out if ever.
So the error of the sea from space counting in the land movement as well is to a mm in error LOL??