At www.sepp.org (the Science and Environmental Policy Project, which has similarities to the GWPF over here in the UK) has a regular newsletter. On July 1st the subjectg was sea level research and something controversial climate scientist Richard Lindzen said in an interview. Since 1979 sea level has been measured by satellites – but the accuracy of it is compromised by the actual shape of the Earth. Whilst satellites also shown an increased rate in the rise of sea levels the measurements are uncertain because of several factors (such as the one above). Lindzen then said, what the proponents of alarm have done is to accept the tide gauge data until 1979 as valid but after that date they use satellite data as it shows an 'acceleration'. In other words, splicing the data (once again) to achieve a definite upward tick (when the artefact of a sudden rise in sea levels is clearly dependent at the point of joining the two systems at the hip. Is this a valid method we may ask – as the hockey stick involved a splicing of data too – tree rings and temperature gauges.
The SEPP author adds some other points to the stew, saying that the problem revolves around how the data is interpreted. The fact is tghat tidal gauges do not show any acceleration in sea level rise – only by splicing the data does this happen. The also used 3 drilling rig platforms in geologically stable regions of the world. In geometry 3 points may suffice to show the surface of a plane but 3 points do not define the surface of a globe – especially an uneven one. One sea level research group claimed sea level measurements required adjusting for 'glacial rebound' (glacial isotopic adjustments) on the basis the ocean basins are getting larger (wsince the end of the last Ice Age). It is not caused by the amount of glacial melt involved but by the release of formerly glaciated regions of the weight of the ice sheet. Land surfaces are in effect rising at the same time as ocean bottoms are falling (by the weight of the extra water added by the ice melt). There then ensues a discussion of exactly how much this would effect sea level rise but it occurred to me the bigger problem was the initial assumption that there was i) a massive ice sheet at the top of the northern hemisphere. If it involved pole shift this would nullify much of the argument as the oceans would have readjusted rather than become bigger and more problematic – realigning to the new earth geoid. Splitting hairs between climate models and some dubious contrary equations may be just stubble blowing in the wind. Catastrophists might argue there were bigger things going on.
In spite of that well worth the read – if only it highlights the unscientific nature of much of the alarmist output.