Sea Level in the Arctic is Falling

This is a confusing and somewhat contradictory story, am i to assume you are saying the sea levels are falling due to the above mentioned reasons? therefore what proof to do have that sea level rises are not caused by the same things rather than AGW?

Fact: sea levels are falling
Fact: ice is growing
Fact: temps are falling

Yet some how these are all caused by AGW. Here is another fact the southern hemisphere temp record shows there has been NO warming in the past 100 years is this caused by AGW as well? Of course not so how can AGW only work in the Nth Hemisphere? I cannot wait to see your response.

Hi Crakar,

The post here is discussing the arctic only, the study that was cited by sceptics was a regional one, please reread the article and keep that in mind.

Fact: sea levels are rising
Fact: ice is melting
Fact: the multi-decadal trend in temperatures is still up

SH temperatures have risen by about .6oC over the last century

Yes, sorry about that i got my poles mixed up. My point was/is that the sth pole ice extent has shown no effects from AGW in fact the ice extent is showing a slight upward trend, see link here http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg

Here is a link that confirms your statement that the Arctic sea levels are dropping, this link shows the latest sea levels and as you can plainly see after levelling off in 2005 the sea levels are now embarking on a downward trend.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/05/satellite-derived-sea-level-updat…

Add to these facts the Sth Hemisphere has warmed by A WHOPPING 0.6C over 100 YEARS. Apart from the post facto statement of "GW causes GC" how else does your AGW theory account for these results?

Crakar, check the article on Antarctic sea ice, it has some information on why little or no warming in the Antarctic is expected.

No one says GW causes GC. Regional cooling however on shorter timeframes, is not inconsistent with an overall warming trend.

Sorry reality is not always as simple as you might like!

Unbelievable what I have to read here!

Under the arctic there is no land! Just water! This is proven by dozens of undersea boats from the US and USSR while hunting each other in the cold war.

So please do an experiment with an ice cube and a glass of water:

Put the ice cube into the glass and watch melting... the "sea level" of the ice cube will rise more and more till the ice cube is melted completely. In revert-> If the "sea level" of an ice cube is falling, then the ice cube must grow! The more ice cube is above "sea level" the more mass and volume the ice cube must get.

So your "evidence" proves the opposite! The ice of the arctic is growing the last couple of years....

... its like climte-gate

Coby, it seems you are being hit by Hans from Austria, the poster boy for the Dunning-Kruger effect. He's "not even wrong"...

Can the decline in Arctic sea levels be partially attributed to the melting of Greenland's ice cap? It has been previously observed that the loss of ice on Greenland actually lowers the local sea level since less ice is pushing Greenland downward. Of course, the 'cost' is a greater rise elsewhere.

I would speculate that there may be enough ice lost on Greenland and other arctic islands to trigger local rebounding of enough circumpolar landmasses to account for at least some of the observed anomaly. And, once again, it is acutally bad news for sea level rise elsewhere.

@Rob and Coby:
Suggestions are that sea level declines are related to one of the many oceanic oscillations. That is, you can have a decline in sea level over short periods, but an overall increase in sea level over longer periods.

Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Global Sea Level Decrease 2004-2010

The full 6 year dataset from January 31, 2004 to January 31, 2010 of the ARGO global network of 3198 free drifting ocean floats with GPS is now available.

Using the Pacific Marine Atlas program to plot data from the entire network shows a slight downtrend in Sea Height over the past six years (January 31, 2004 - January 31, 2010) using data from the entire network:

PaulinMI

Thanks for that information. But what does it mean?

You got me, but I'll be watching for the climate wizards analysis in the near future.

PaulinMI

Sorry, perhaps you missed the point of my post. I'm not a 'climate wizard', but I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest it means absolutely nothing. And I'm pretty confident every scientist in the world (not just climate scientists) will agree with me; even though every non-scientist denialist will loudly proclaim it is proof of something.

I was just interested in what your interpretation was and why you might think that.

Further to my last - and I don't want to second guess your response - this is what Argo has to say about their own data (from their website here: http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html)

"A key objective of Argo is to observe ocean signals related to climate change. This includes regional and global changes in ocean temperature and heat content, salinity and freshwater content, the steric height of the sea surface in relation to total sea level, and large-scale ocean circulation. The global Argo dataset is not yet long enough to observe global change signals. Seasonal and interannual variability dominate the present 6-year globally-averaged time series. Sparse global sampling during 2004-2005 can lead to substantial differences in statistical analyses of ocean temperature and trend (or steric sea level and its trend, e.g. Leuliette and Miller, 2009). Analyses of decadal changes presently focus on comparison of Argo to sparse and sometimes inaccurate historical data. Argo's greatest contributions to observing the global oceans are still in the future, but its global span is clearly transforming the capability to observe climate-related changes."

I think that tends to back up my previous position.

Mandas,
Well, thanks for the information and perspective.

I've been reading around here long enough to know things don't mean much in the short term, or until they've been corroborated with other studies.

So that's why I look forward to the expert opinions.

Well i am not a climate wizard Paul but i can tell you that if the data showed sea levels are rising then Mandas would be all over this like a cheap suit claiming it is the end of the flat earth society. The data shows sea levels are dropping and suddenly he does his best seargent Shultz impression of "i know nothing".

So lets step through this logically and methodically and see where we end up shall we?

Firstly we were told that increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere will lead to increasing temps and this theory worked for a while until the temps stopped rising, then a new theory was developed which stated that all the missing heat from the atmosphere has been absorbed into the oceans and the oceans are heating up.

The ARGO data shows us the ocean temp is not rising and has in fact cooled slightly. So where is the heat one asks. Well a new theory was then developed which stated that all the heated water has now sunk to the bottom of the ocean, this heat is lurking there and on a day of its choosing will resurface.

Now of course if all this heat is lurking and there is a continuation of the build up of this lurking heat one would expect the oceans to continue to rise.

As Mandas asks what does it mean? I suspect there is a new theory being developed which will state that the recent spate of earthquakes has caused the sea floor to drop thus causing the sea levels to drop thus masking the effects of AGW and of course it goes without saying that GPS altitude data is inherently inaccurate.

Or they could simply say the theory of AGW has been falsified, if you are looking for me i will be the blue bastard in the corner holding his breath.

PaulinMI - I don't place much trust in someone who cherry picks 1998 as the start point for temp trends ("12 years of cooling") while quote-mining Trenberth's "missing warming" comment from the stolen CRU e-mails when anyone who read Trenberth's paper (referenced in said e-mail) can see that he's not talking about what denialists claim he was talking about.

I presume this is your source:

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/02/global-sea-level-decrease-200…

The comments are interesting. The blog author isn't as unreasonable as one might think from the lead graphic, he's obviously a denialist but at least he listens to people who correct him in this particular thread (I won't waste my time with the rest of his site).

One comment might be of interest:

"My analysis indicates that the trend slope will be in the range -0.20 to +0.12 at the 95% confidence level." I believe this means annually, in mm, so this commenter's saying it's -0.04+/- 0.16 mm/year.

This supports Mandas's position, I believe.

Mandas, you got the ")" in the URL, here's the correct version:

http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html

This graph from the ARGO site gives some idea as to the amount of variability imposed on the long-term warming trend.

crakar, sea levels are rising and have been shown to do so by every method used.

The data PIM alluded to is dodgy at best and probably rubbish.

Some blogger downloaded some raw data from the Pacific Marine Atlas program. There is no information what data was down loaded (Argo measures temperature not sea level so has to be processed). There was no information on how he processed that data to get sea level, there was no information on the various calibrations which data from each individual float has to go through.

Other methods of calculating sea level, altimetry, gravity, heat content and tide gauges all show that it is rising.

This is another "gotcha moment" from the deniers which will quickly fade into oblivion.

Sea levels calculated by satellite altimetry are shown here:

http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html

You see Paul, its not that you were using the wrong bait its your technique.

Well looks like nothing had changed on planet crakar.

".....if the data showed sea levels are rising then Mandas would be all over this like a cheap suit claiming it is the end of the flat earth society. The data shows sea levels are dropping and suddenly he does his best seargent Shultz impression of "i know nothing"...."

No - mandas would examine the source material to see what it said, and respond accordingly.

"....As Mandas asks what does it mean? I suspect there is a new theory being developed which will state that the recent spate of earthquakes has caused the sea floor to drop thus causing the sea levels to drop thus masking the effects of AGW and of course it goes without saying that GPS altitude data is inherently inaccurate...."

No - mandas would look at the source material to see what it said and respond accordingly.

"....The ARGO data shows us the ocean temp is not rising and has in fact cooled slightly...."

Once again, think I will go to the source material to see what it says and respond accordingly. So, let's do that shall we (I know I already did that at post #13, firstly by providing a link to the website, then providing a direct quote from the website which discussed the veracity of their data. So, just for crakar's benefit, because he never reads other people's posts, nor does he ever read the original source of any data before he formulates an opinion (most of which are not his anyway, just plagiarised opinions from denialist bloggers.

Here is the link the Argo website:
http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html

Here is the information on Argo's data, as explained by Argo themselves:

"...The global Argo dataset is not yet long enough to observe global change signals. Seasonal and interannual variability dominate the present 6-year globally-averaged time series. Sparse global sampling during 2004-2005 can lead to substantial differences in statistical analyses of ocean temperature and trend (or steric sea level and its trend, e.g. Leuliette and Miller, 2009). Analyses of decadal changes presently focus on comparison of Argo to sparse and sometimes inaccurate historical data. Argo's greatest contributions to observing the global oceans are still in the future, but its global span is clearly transforming the capability to observe climate-related changes...."

So, my take on that - which is unchanged over the past few posts - is that the Argo data is insufficiently developed to draw any conclusions. I think that's a pretty reasonable conclusion to draw, seeing it is the same one that Argo has drawn themselves about their own data. Nothing about earthquakes, or sinking heat, or cosmic rays, or vines in Greenland soaking up all the water. I will just focus on science and rationality, and leave the wild speculation and unfounded conclusions to crakar.

"planet crakar" another fantastic name from Mandas.

What else did he have to say....lets see there was an appeal to authority and there was the obligatory "aw gee shucks, thats weather not climate" defence.

If we assume that historical data is sparse and inaccurate as per your cut and paste above then you must surely accept that any and all nostradamous like predictions of sea level rise based on this data are a load of crap. In fact the ONLY accurate data we have shows the scare to be nothing but a scare.

Or are you simply relying on your scary model predictions that you plagerise from a studies to support your "the end is nigh" mentality?

So in summary, yes the ARGO data is only 10 years in the making but it is the ONLY data we have that can give us an indication of what is really happening. Based on this data Mandas would you say that the oceans are absorbing all that AGW generated heat which has not been seen in the atmosphere for near on ten years?

"....What else did he have to say....lets see there was an appeal to authority and there was the obligatory "aw gee shucks, thats weather not climate" defence..."

Ummmm, where?

"....Or are you simply relying on your scary model predictions that you plagerise from a studies to support your "the end is nigh" mentality?..."

You do know what the word 'plagiarise' (sic) means right?

"...So in summary, yes the ARGO data is only 10 years in the making but it is the ONLY data we have that can give us an indication of what is really happening..."

Oh really?? This is the first time ANYONE has thought about measuring sea-levels huh?

The planet crakar gets further divorced from reality every minute.

What!!! no new stupid name? Come on Mandas you could have have lead off with "arse crakar" or something just as lame.

So the ARGO data shows that the sea temps have not risen in how many years is it now Mandas? and now they show in line with actual tidal gauges that the sea level has not changed much. So i asked you when you consider that all data before ARGO is crap what does this ARGO data suggest to you now?

But as usual you just pontificate and postulate with typical believer gibberish. You must be a big fan of Penny Wong as she just gave another baseless speech on sea level rise. Did it make you feel invigorated when you heard it Mandas.

Of course sea levels have been rising since the dawn of man but just like the CO2 lags not leads defence we get the pig squeal "but this time its different".

I expect your next post will supply a "computer model simulation" of just how bad it is going to get, if so dont bother.

Why only show "Recent" sea level rise in your graph? Is that because it was considerably higher in 1841 than now?
http://www.john-daly.com/deadisle/index.htm

Dick

To answer your question - no.

Why would you take the word of a fat drunken golfer anyway?

Pointless visiting here, obviously. Cheers.

Some time ago Mandas and myself had a discussion about Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner's views on sea level rise, in the end Mandas's only defence was that Morner was an idiot or words to that effect. If anyone knows the where abouts of this discussion please feel free to enlighten me on where it is.

Anyway here is a new study of the same area and once again it has been found that the seas are not rising.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/south…

A note to Mandas, i fully expect you to respond to this post, if you do can you please avoid claiming the study is flawed because the author is an idiot or the website is crap or any other derogatory term you can think of. Either comment on the findings or dont bother at all.

crakar

Yep - I will respond. But no, I will not read the opinion piece you linked to. I feel too attached to my brain cells to waste them reading anything from the SPPI. But please feel free to find a real study by real scientists that you would like to show me.

To translate Mandas's last post....I have no way of refuting this study so i will simply ignore it in the hope that it will go away, by doing this i can maintain my dogmatic belief that sea levels are indeed rising at an alarming rate all because of AGW.

Actually crakar, my last post was written in English and doesn't need translating.

Mind you, if you refer to some of my earlier posts (did you ever read them?) you will note that I do not believe that sea levels are rising at an alarming rate. Especially since I have been to every one of those island nations in the SW Pacific and seen for myself. What is your opinion based on?

crakar

You really are useless aren't you. If you ever want to find a previous discussion we have had, why don't you try using the 'search' box on the left hand side of the website under coby's picture.

But given that you are so hopeless, the discussion we had on the Morner paper was in this thread:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2010/04/more_conspiracy_theories_…

Scroll down to post #72 to see my views on sea level rise, where I say among other things:

"......On the subject of places like Kiribati and Tuvalu, I have absolutely no doubt that the 'crisis' of sea level rise in these places is being grossly overstated for political purposes. These are very low lying nations, and they are affected quite badly by sea indundation from storms and king tides on a regular basis. But it has always been so. Of course, sea levels can rise at different rates in different locations, but it is ridiculous to believe that the sea level in the western Pacific has risen by up to a metre - which would be necessary to cause the problems which have been suggested - when there is no evidence to show that it has, and it hasn't risen by nearly that much anywhere else in the world. The governments of these small nations are generally quite corrupt by western standards (lots of nepotism, which is standard practice in these cultures), and the countries are very poor. They rely on foreign aid (from Australia and New Zealand in particular - but China is now playing a much larger role) for most of their capital, and are fond of playing off one side against the other for favours or money. An example is that they agreed to side with Japan in the IWC in return for investment capital. So as far as this issue goes, I would totally disregard anything any politician says about sea level rise, especially if he has a vested interest in beating it up...."

On Nils-Morner being an idiot, I said this:

".... I see he believes in dowsing, which is a strange thing for a scientist to believe, but we shouldn't let that colour our opinions on the main issue...." (I note you believe in divining - how predictable!!)

But then have a look at post #79 for my critique of his paper, which is based on the total lack of evidence - and a great deal of contrary evidence.

I believe a grovelling apology would be in order, not that you would ever admit to being wrong - despite the extreme frequency of such an event occuring.

The more you talk the less a scientist you sound, maybe you majored in the arts or something.

Anyway to post 29, my opinion is based on tidal gauge readings what is yours?

When you went to these islands did you stand on the shore line for 5 minutes and watch the tide come in and so came to a conclusion?

Yap.

Iâm sorry but the Lapdog needs to chime in for a bit here . . .

Some time ago Mandas and myself had a discussion about Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner's views on sea level rise, in the end Mandas's only defence was that Morner was an idiot or words to that effect. -- Crakar, Sea Level in the Arctic is Falling #26

(Crakar then linked us to a non-peer reviewed piece by the Science and Public Policy Institute regarding sea level rise, which I know he never read. Groan.)

While I confess to having not read the Morner paper nor having the technical background to evaluate the strength of Madasâs critique, Mandas made no reference to Mornerâs âidiocyâ (*or* âwords to that effectâ). In fact, he wrote a 700+ word critique in the More Conspiracy Theories . . . thread (which of course Crakar never read, because Crakar rarely reads posts or articlesâeven the ones he cites.) Among Mandasâs detailed critiques:

Absolutely no evidence is presented for the conclusion regarding increased evaporation to explain Mornerâs claim that, âIn the region of the Maldives, a general fall of sea level occurred some 30 years ago . . .

So he is suggesting that the central Indian Ocean sea level has fallen by 30cm, while the sea level is rising in the rest of the world. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Doesn't even seem to gel with data everyone else has observed for the Indian Ocean, such as here:

Morner should take a good hard look at potential other factors to explain his observations. There is ample evidence of land rise and fall for the Maldives . . . -- Mandas #79

Crakarâs version of the facts:

Mandas's only defence was that Morner was an idiot or words to that effect . . . --Crakar, Sea Level in the Arctic is Falling #26

Crakar, you might also have forgotten your lengthy response to Mandas right after his now contentious post #79, in which we saw your bold play for the intellectual and moral high ground:

In other words can Mandas explain why he just rejected Morners study on sea level rise given that he openly admitted he is not an expert? I doubt that he can.
For if he could he would have to acknowledge that he simply does not believe what Morner has to say, but if he could bring himself to admit this then he will surely then understand why i do not simply accept or reject studies of my choosing like him. -- Crakar, More Conspiracy Theories #80

This from one who has been demonstratively shown to:

1.Plagiarize fraudulent pseudo-science;
2.Cite as authorities material he has not read;
3.Changed his story as to what the particular claims about unread material are;
4.Cite as authorities things which openly contradict his position;

Now donât cry foul and injury, Crakar. When you pull this shit (and youâve been pulling it for years on this forum), you forfeit the right to claim victim status when someone calls you on your bullshit.

Crakar, it is *you* who donât read studies (or posts), *you* who pick your sources based on content (or at least what you *think* it says) and preference, and you who blatantly distorted what Mandas said. The real question here is, At what point does it end?

It never will of course, but thatâs something to which anyone who participates in this forum has long reconciled herself or himself.

Thanks for chiming in Skip,

Of course it would have been nice if you had an actual opinion of your own regarding Morner and his work but alas as usual your posts fail to provide one.

Now i acknowledge that you spent a long time cobbling together your latest effort but i am afraid it was a waste of time, well on me anyway.

If on the other hand you could share your thoughts on Morners study rather than saying "yeah what he said" then i might consider it worthy of a response.

I feel like I've missed a party. I'm not going to catch up on everything that's been said but I will take a look at this quote:

"Of course it would have been nice if you had an actual opinion of your own regarding Morner and his work but alas as usual your posts fail to provide one...If on the other hand you could share your thoughts on Morners study rather than saying "yeah what he said" then i might consider it worthy of a response"

Compare to this:

"Anyway here is a new study of the same area and once again it has been found that the seas are not rising."

No espousal on crakar's own opinion on Morner's work. No sharing of thoughts on the study, just crakar saying, in effect, "yeah, what he said".

One rule for you, one rule for everyone else hey crakar?

i am afraid it was a waste of time, well on me anyway.

It always is, Crakar. That's not even the point anymore.

OK, I went & had a look at the SPPI tract (more fool me, I won't call it a paper as there has evidently been no rigorous review process). The data is taken from SEAFRAME who's latest report is here: http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO60102/IDO60102.2009_1.pdf

Firstly SEAFRAME issue a caveat: "In the meantime caution must be exercised in interpreting the short-term trends" (p. 28). NOTE this caveat is deemed so important it is both bolded and italicised.

All SEAFRAME sites show a positive trend over the full length of teh data. (Table 2.) (but remember the caveat). Certain sites show some subsidence and barometric changes, but these are much less than the total trend (e.g. Samoa shows a subsidence of 1.0 mm per year, a barometric change of 0.2mm and a sea-level change of 6mm per year - thus with the adjustments this would equal a sea level trend of +4.8mm).

SEAFRAME go on to say "Although the sea level trends are not yet indicative of long-term changes in mean sea level, they are showing coherent regional short-term changes (Table 2)." These changes are all positive.

So, moving back to Gray's piece. Let's take some examples (with the SEAFRAME estimated trend (mm/year) in brackets before Gray's commentary):

The Cook Islands (+5.3). "There was little or no change in sea level between 1994 and 2006...The rise in 2007 has slowly subsided, but is unexplained. It cannot be regarded as indicating an upwards trend unless there is further persistence." (Remember the caveat?)

Fiji (+5.4) "There was a slight peak in 1997 and a small rise from 2000 to 2004, then a rise to 2009. All of these seem to be associated with tropical cyclones so there is no indication of a regular upwards trend." This quote bears closer scrutiny - "...rise from 2000 to 2004, then a rise to 2009...seem to be associated with tropical cyclones" 200-2004 = 5 years, 2004-2009 = 6 years. This then equals 11 years of tropical cyclones? Sure about that? Really?

Marshall Islands (+4.2) "...the sea level at Majuro did not change in the 14 years 1994-2008" Except for the +4.2 mm per year yes? Oh, Gray tries to cover his arse here: "The slightly lower figure right at the beginning, 1993-1995, could have been early teething troubles..." Could have been, ok then.

PNG (+8.1) "...there was no sea-level change from 1995 to 2008..." Riiight.

Samoa (+6.0) "There is no sea-level change from 1996 to 2008, 12 years. The period between 1993 and 1996, which was lower, may have been early teething troubles before the GPS equipment was installed in 2000" Those pesky teething troubles again, note that though Gray has used this excuse to throw out 1993-1996 he keeps 1996-2000.

Solomon Islands (+8.7) " There is no overall change between 1999 and 2008" Gray doesn't even attempt to give a reason for throwing out five years of data here.

Gray makes no attempt at statistical analysis of these trends, his method? "I have made a subjective estimate in all cases."

Get that? "a subjective estimate"

That's "a subjective estimate"

"a subjective estimate"

"in all cases"

This whole farrago since post #26 is due to "a subjective estimate".

Sheesh.

Again, very detailed, Chris.

Although I assure you that you have read it with more attention than Crakar, who just cited it as "proof" and then had the gall to to berate anyone who questioned the validity of something he himself did not read.

One more thing.

From the SPPI report: "Since 1990 he has specialised in Climate Science, publishing many papers on the subject"

A search ISI Web of knowledge on Gray V* as an author & climate as a topic returns 4 results: two from VM Gray at the University of Witwaterstrand, 1 on the political management of managed care and one from our esteemed author Vincent Gray in Climate Research vol 10 (1998) titled "The IPCC future projections: are they plausible?" cited by 2 papers (deFreitas 2002 & Hulme 1999).

Many papers = 1?

Or is that a subjective estimate?

Careful there Chris. Grey is not lying. He has published extensively, its just that he has not BEEN published extensively. He has published it all himself. No self respecting peer reviewed journal will publish such pseudo science crap.

That's a subtle difference mandas, though one might say a hint subjective...

Still no response from crakar. Disappointing considering his last post on this thread finished:

"If on the other hand you could share your thoughts on Morners [sic] study...then i [sic] might consider it worthy of a response."

Well, I've shared my thoughts on Gray's study (the one I think crakar was actually referring to, it was his most recent link), I wonder whether the "great" crakar will consider it worthy, or if he'll try and ignore it...

Sorry Chris but i dont sit here with my nose pressed against the monitor waiting for someone to post a response. You see this as avoidance i see it as having a life outside of this website, each to their own i say.

To entertain you here is my response

Cook Islands: Yes remember the caveat!!!!!

Fiji: He claims there where cyclones in the years 93, 97, 03 and 09 there was also 18 tsunamis during this period. All these events have the effect of influencing the SL over such a short time frame therefore no long term trend can be seen.

Do you Chris disagree then by all means explain why he is wrong.

Marshall islands: Rather than take what the man says out of context to paint a poorer picture in an effort to support ones own beliefs lets look at what he really said.

If you look at the mean data (Green line Chris) you can see the effects of the 97/98 El Nino and by that i mean the sea level dropped with its onset and then returned to the original level afterwards, also you can see from the year of the stations inception (1993) to 1995 the level remained flat but then we see an uptick to the new level which has been maintained through to 2010. He claims this COULD be caused by teething troubles with the newly installed GPS equipment.

Do you KNOW what caused this uptick Chris?

PNG: He claims a 5.9mm trend not 8.1 as you state, i am not sure how he can claim no trend over this period maybe he includes the effects of cylones etc but he does not explain his reasons.

Samoa: If you look at the graphs provided (green line) can you see a trend between 96 and 2008? Please explain to me the sea level rise that i cannot see.

S Islands:The El Nino years 96 to 98 can be clearly seen in the data, he could have said 96 to 2008, that way he would have only thrown out 2 years of data.

So lets recap you comment on 6 sets of data with the cook island comment not being a critism that leaves 5 scathing comments, i assume because you made no comment on the sites of Fed State of Micronesia, Kiribati, Nauru, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu then you must agree with Grays comments.

Therefore you feel aggreived with 5 of the 12 comments, leaving your personal aggreivences aside for a moment do you Chris believe these tide gauge results prove the pacific islands are under threat from AGW. Do you accept that in a few years the people from these islands will need to migrate to Australia and NZ? Or are you simply upset with Gray?

Crakar, you do me the honour of responding and yet, unfortunately you seem to have missed the crux of my point. I put it at the end of my post so maybe you got distracted. I know attention span can be a problem sometimes with people so I'll put it front and centre here:

Gray's whole article is based on SUBJECTIVE ESTIMATES of the data.

(repeat for effect-though that seems to have been missed the first time)

SUBJECTIVE ESTIMATES

Let's go back to how you introduced this "Anyway here is a new study of the same area and once again it has been found that the seas are not rising."

"a new study...has...found."

This study involved eyeballing some graphs and making up some twaddle to spin up a story (and crakar it is twaddle - if he could have backed it up with statistical analysis he would have done so).

Crakar this is not personal greivance, this me annoyed that someone is using data (who's collectors let's not forget state "caution must be exercised in interpreting the short-term trends") in such a way that lay readers (that's you) will think that 1) it's a proper scientific study and 2) that it found something significant.

This has no bearing on what will or will not happen to the populations of the Pacific Islands. This is about how science is being given a bad name by people who think SUBJECTIVE ESTIMATES equals scientific findings.

And another thing: "i assume because you made no comment...then you must agree with Gray"

This coming after "i dont sit here with my nose pressed against the monitor waiting for someone to post a response. You see this as avoidance i see it as having a life outside of this website"

Is just laughable. I too have a life which is why I only bothered with half of Gray's bullshit subjective guesses. (It's also laughable given the time you have expended propping up your amusing ideas on the mixing of CO2 in the atmosphere, but we won't go into that here.)

There are plenty of methods to quantify what does and doesn't constitute a trend in time series data. General Additive Models and General Mixed Models, Inflection point analysis and various regression models spring immediately to mind. You need to ask yourself why Gray did not even attempt any of these. Then you need to ask yourself why he would publish this online when he hasn't done anything other than guesstimate. I have my own ideas on that front, but I won't state them as they are, wait for it, a SUBJECTIVE ESTIMATION.

(By the way, I think everyone should remember this phrase when involved in any future conversations with crakar: "i assume because you made no comment then you must agree")

addendum:

crakar, I forgot the rest of your quote:

"...that the seas are not rising"

Gray 'found' nothing of the sort. He ESTIMATED that for periods of time in the record there was no clear trend (not clear to his eyeball estimates that is). That is something very different to "that the seas are not rising" as I'm sure you'll not admit.

I'm confused! But then, reading crakar's posts will do that to me.

I was just wondering, are sea levels falling slightly, are they falling drastically, are they staying the same, or are the rising but with no significant trend?

Crakar has linked to denialist posts making all these claims. Could you let us know which of these you agree with please, and which of your links do you think is wrong (and why did you link to it?).

Ta muchly.

Chris were you refering to post 42?

Please be more specific.

crakar I was referring to everything since post #26.

And every other occasion when I've made full reply to some of your nonsense to be met with silence whilst you start up somewhere else.

You are the spiritual child of Duane Gish.

(For others, this and post #45 are continuation of a "conversation" started here:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2010/03/a_chilling_effect_on_a_wa… (post #100))

I am not sure i follow you Chris,

In post 36 you went through the article with a fine tooth comb and made comments about each tide gauge.

In post 41 i gave you my thoughts on the article.

Now at this point we have both given are thoughts on the article which we are both entitled to do and the fact that your view differs from mine is OK by me.

In 42 you emphasised the point that it a subjective estimation and yes it is as it is not peer reviewed correct?

In the end nothing has changed you can either agree or disagree with Grays opinions, which basically are that there is very little upward trend in sea level rise.

Am i missing something here Chris? was i supposed to say something else? I suggest the next time you feel our conversations have been prematurely cut short you raise it with me a little quicker, 8 months is a long time to hold a grudge.

crakar

I hate to butt into the intellectual discussion between yourself and Chris, but you may note that Chris's previous post was on 25 October last year. It was you who restarted the discussion today (8 months later), not Chris.

Actually Mandas,

From Chris

But crakar, you've proved time and again that you can't handle substance in my posts, see for example your response to me here: http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/06/sea-level-in-arctic-is-fa…

I signed off there - "I'm sure you'll not admit", and I was right.

Posted by: Chris S. | June 22, 2011 5:12 AM

To be honest i had no interest in revisiting this thread but it seemed important to Chris that i do, so i have. Am awaiting to see if Chris is now satisfied or whether further discussion is needed.

In 42 you emphasised the point that it a subjective estimation and yes it is as it is not peer reviewed correct?

Your buffoonery knows no limit. This statement is just a microcosm of the internal torture of your mind in convincing yourself you have any basis for posting anything.

. . . 8 months is a long time to hold a grudge.

But a blink of the eye in the duration in which someone's complete ineptitude can and will be remembered.

crakar I see no need for further discussion on this point or any other you've run away from. I merely raised it as an example.

Your complaint on the other thread ("Now you see Chris your post above puts you in the category as [sic] Skip and WOW. No substance in your post just personal attacks, in other words rubbish. So why dont you jump right back into the box you crawled out of.........theres a good boy.") looks rather hollow when your reaction to posts of any substance at all is as pathetic as above.

This was just the first example I found, if you want further examples of your lack of appreciation of posts with substance just ask.

"I suggest the next time you feel our conversations have been prematurely cut short you raise it with me a little quicker"

No, I'll just assume that because you made no comment then you must agree...