What I meant to get across was that for an adjustment of raw data to be reasonable in this case, they would have to know what every drop of water is doing and why.
Why weren't the effects of El Ninos attributed to sea-levels in the 90s? Not only do they now attribute higher rates of sea-level rises on El Ninos, the data was already adjusted upwards over that period (raw satellite data showed almost no rise at all). What about hydrothermal vents and deep ocean volcanoes? How much do you attribute to other factors? You have to know all the details before adjusting the raw data, otherwise it is just pure guesswork.
It doesn't matter how much sophistry is used, IPCC climate models do not reflect reality. I know that much, and I don't need to be a qualified scientist to know this. If we all left the thinking and deductions to others, we would all be stuffed.
sea level rise has slowed, page-25
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 8 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)