I’ve just got half-way through with the tidal gauge data gathering for series that ended in 2008, and I thought I’d give an update as to what I’m finding. Mind you, I’m only half way through, and I haven’t looked at the locations of these gauges, but here’s a graph of what I’ve got so far.
Again, I’m only half-way through, so we shouldn’t infer much from this, but………
James
but………………
You obviously don’t know what you’re doing…..it’s going the wrong way!
lol, yes, this is my way of crying for help.
But, yes, it is going the wrong way. Given this and the series ending in 2009, it getting a bit silly about what stations are maintained and which we are dropping. I can’t say definitely, yet, but I’m wonder who taught whom about selective station removal.
This is going to pop a few corks when you finish….
….I’ll bet you no one has looked at this at all
Right, which I think is a good place to start. I expect a contentious response if the data says what I think it is saying. There’s a long ways to go yet.
I think every one just took it as a given that the sea level was consistently rising. The give away was the satellites adjusting their readings to match “reality”. I took a quick look at the data and could tell no one really looked at the gauges. So, once again, no observations to go with this “science”.
“The give away was the satellites adjusting their readings to match “reality””
bingo……..
I am thinking that with the Really long term decline in temperatures for the last 8,000 years the overall sea level should be dropping as more H2O is locked up in ice fields. I have seen photos of bases on Greenland and Antarctica that need to be on stilts to keep raising the above the snow level. Te summit camera shots for Greenland show lots of earth moving machinery to keep the snow cleared. While there was a short term warming of 2 to 3 hundred years with even shorter cold spells mixed in. I think the warming may not have happened at all and we are still in a relatively mild portion of the LIA, About 1250 there was a step down in overall global temperatures and we are waiting for the next step down of a couple of degrees. From what I have read it is plausible that the South polar region is the leading indicator for the rest of the globe and it has been cooling for years. I think any warming since the 30s has been manufactured to make it appear the globe is warming because the weather is to mild to support the Ice Age scare!
As far as sea levels go I suspect they will continue to fall for the next 80K years until the next interglacial.
It would take 500 years of the same weather patterns or warmer than now for the biosphere to reach the same level it was before the decent into the LIA!
Mike, you could very well be right. But this sea-level study is aimed towards a much shorter time span.
As Lat pointed out, there really hasn’t been much produced in the way of sea-level study via tidal gauges. We were told the sea-levels were rising. And, that’s consistent with coming out of the LIA, so everyone just accepted it. Then, the satellites took over measuring the sea-level. As we’ve seen, the satellites have some major issues. So, I thought it would be worthwhile to take a gander at the tidal gauges.
I really don’t think this will be an issue by the time I’m done with the tidal gauges. I expect this to take on a life of its own after the results get released. But, if CAGW is still an issue after all that, we’ll tie the gauge measurements to sat measurements. We’ll probably going to do that in a small extent anyway at some point.
BTW, if the data of the 2008 stuff runs in a similar fashion of the 2009 and 2010, this graph will slightly increase, but it will be because of coasts already well represented in the other 2 data assemblies. The distribution of the sites is the SOB in all of this.
Falling or flat. The assumption has been that the globe was recovering from the LIA. Keep the shaft of Mann’s Hockey Stick and you probably have a good representation of historical records. The blade was a statistical artifact of the smoothing methods used and the trees. By training on corrupt surface temperature data for recent trends he ended up with corrupt results!
Mike, I don’t think the blade is as smooth as what was made out to be in any of Mann’s HS studies. The blade was simply an exaggeration and invention of the garbage assumptions he made, loosely based on corrupt surface temp data.
It is all in the various smoothing Al-Gore-Rhythms used. He did not use just one but for each section he used what provided the desired results. Sort of common practice in the Dedro world! Start with results and find the methods that best fit the desired end product!
hat is what IPCC has been about.
Last line starts with “That”
Yep, and that’s why the final product of this study will be better. It is impossible not to have a preconceived notion about what the data will show. The answer is to come up with a unbiased criteria and stick with it.
Unfortunately, I don’t think the criteria I used will provide for enough coverage. It will probably have to be changed. But, if and when it is changed, the results of the previous criteria will be documented and made available. The reasoning for the change will be noted. And the search for answers will continue. It will be unencumbered by secrecy or diversion. There will be interpretive disagreements, but the methodology will be simple and straight forward, open, and clear. Best yet, people at home will be able to follow along, even if they weren’t there from the start.
The primary argument will be how it relates to Pear Reviewed research reports that sat something else.
You need to get yourself a some pears to have it reviewed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pear
lol, yeh, well, as we see, all sorts of review techniques are being called into question…….. peer and pear review!!!