IPCC Falsifies Sea Level Data?

Question

http://my.telegraph.co.uk/reasonmclucus/december_2007/ipcc_falsifies_sea_level_data.htm

Answer 1

No, they don't.  To be blunt, Morner is a liar.  He also fancies himself an expert in dowsing by the way (finding groundwater with a Y-shaped stick).

http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1560

Answer 2

The correct answer is "no".  LOL

Your linked article to a non-scientist personal blog, which links to an interview on a web-site owned by someone (with no evident climate science experience) in Argentina.  Do you actually consider this a more reliable source of information than something like the Journal Surveys in Geophysics?  Because one of the classic (and well accepted) papers on global sea level rise was written by Bruce C. Douglas of the Department of Geography, University of Maryland, and published there.  You can read the abstract here:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/p364...

[QUOTE]The mean trend of 9 groups made up of the newly-selected records is also 1.8 mm/yr ± 0.1 for global sea level rise over the last 100+ years. A somewhat smaller set of longer records in 8 groups (minimum 70 years, average 91) gives 1.9 mm/yr ± 0.1 for the mean trend. These values are about an order of magnitude larger than the average over the last few millennia.[END QUOTE]

These match nicely with the latest IPCC report which said "Global mean sea level has been rising. From 1961 to 2003, the average rate of sea level rise was 1.8 ± 0.5 mm yr–1. For the 20th century, the average rate was 1.7 ± 0.5 mm yr–1, consistent with the TAR estimate of 1 to 2 mm yr– 1."

And they agree nicely with this chart here:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/0...

Despite that one somewhat eccentric Swedish dudes statements, these measurements use real tide gauges (not "just" a bunch of computer models) and the scientists reporting on the information understand plate tectonics just as well as he claims too.

Edit:

Darn that Dana beat me to the punch again. And he discredited the guy with a lot fewer words than I used ;-)

Answer 3

I feel there is a good possibility that they did. But of course the believers in AGW on here don't want to believe that there's even a possibility that anything they believe in could have false data in it.

Well think about it this way guys, the Bible has many things in it that are hard to believe and in the most part I believe them to be inaccuracies and dramatizations.

So your IPCC bible most likely has inaccuracies in it, so just accept it and move on.

Answer 4

Alarmists don't let facts get in the way of their cult.

Answer 5

From the link:

" Morner is particularly critical of the  overemphasis on computer modeling by IPCC "experts" instead of doing actual field research like geologists do."

" Again, it was a computer issue. This is the typical thing: The meteorological community works with computers, simple computers. Geologists don't do that! We go out in the field and observe, and then we can try to make a model with computerization; but it's not the first thing."

I work with other geologist, even some very liberal ones, and I know of none that believe humans cause harmful warming.  It seems alarmism stems primarily from computer generated models that are easily manipulated.   Sea levels have not changed perceptively since I was born 45 plus years ago.  According to precise measurements, they have in fact risen slightly but not out of line with the gradual rise that has been happening naturally for thousands of years.  Sea levels rise and fall, climates warm and cool, and habitats migrate in response.  Those that think climates are stable are not geologists.

Answer 6

Makes me wonder about all the other ( scientific data ).

Answer 7

I have heard that story before. So far only that one guy is saying these things. No others have corroborated what he says. So I have no way of knowing if that one tide Gage in Hong Kong is really subsiding or not of if the IPCC used it to correct all others or not or if a tree was removed or not. But if all those accusations are true, then it would look bad for the IPCC. I want some proof that those accusations are true before I just accept the word of one man against the whole IPCC.

Answer 8

Falsifying studies always has and will continue. Billions of dollars are awarded to research foundations and educational institutions for different agendas. Ever wonder how college professors drive luxury cars and live in upscale dwellings on thier salaries? Doctoring studies for both corporate and academia debates is more common than ever. Many students actually teach while thier profs are "publishing" and the actual discoveries are from the students while the good professors take credit and the patents as thier own work. The students get screwed.The more studies support an opposing opinion, the wealthier the so-called non bias researchers become. So, while college tution rates and other costs skyrocket past the students, the professors who say they care for the poor and disavatage will live well and are silent. Remember, most of these teaching are far left elite liberals. Limosine liberals.