• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CLAIM: NASA Data Tampering Doubles Sea Level Rise...

MickeyW

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2015
Messages
14,012
Reaction score
3,439
Location
Southern Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
NASA has doubled 1880 to 1980 sea level rise since Hansen 1983. In 1983, NASA showed very little sea level rise after 1950. Now they show rapid sea level rise from 1950 to 1980.

This fraud should not surprise anyone, because they have also doubled global warming via data tampering during that same time period.

NASA – Doubling Sea Level Rise By Data Tampering | Real Science
 

American

Bier Meister
Bartender
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
89,611
Reaction score
28,471
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
Be prepared for the usual beatdown by the Lefties.
 

saveliberty

New member
Joined
Apr 25, 2016
Messages
40
Reaction score
9
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
I am always fond of Faithers promoting CO2 as the major culprit in heat retention, when methane is far more active in that category. Why not discuss that? Probably because methane is not a major gas produced by human activity? Amazing how a La Nina can cool things despite the CO2 levels. Moving the goal posts and manipulating data is not the stuff of science sorry.
 
Last edited:

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
79,010
Reaction score
35,168
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Be prepared for the usual beatdown by the Lefties.

I'm sorry you're triggered by me pointing out that no evidence of actual fraud was provided.

It's literally "newer estimate shows higher, therefore fraud." And you bought it. Because you're an unskeptic.
 

bubbabgone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
30,603
Reaction score
15,817
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
NASA has doubled 1880 to 1980 sea level rise since Hansen 1983. In 1983, NASA showed very little sea level rise after 1950. Now they show rapid sea level rise from 1950 to 1980.

This fraud should not surprise anyone, because they have also doubled global warming via data tampering during that same time period.

NASA – Doubling Sea Level Rise By Data Tampering | Real Science

You're going to be told the data was corrected, not tampered with ... and they'll do that retroactively because that's where trends are born.
 

American

Bier Meister
Bartender
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
89,611
Reaction score
28,471
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
I'm sorry you're triggered by me pointing out that no evidence of actual fraud was provided.

It's literally "newer estimate shows higher, therefore fraud." And you bought it. Because you're an unskeptic.

Not triggered by you at all.
 

jet57

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
31,057
Reaction score
3,969
Location
not here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
NASA has doubled 1880 to 1980 sea level rise since Hansen 1983. In 1983, NASA showed very little sea level rise after 1950. Now they show rapid sea level rise from 1950 to 1980.

This fraud should not surprise anyone, because they have also doubled global warming via data tampering during that same time period.

NASA – Doubling Sea Level Rise By Data Tampering | Real Science

Well, Steven Godard is a denier, so we can start there. Secondly, there are no credible and objective sources reporting this, and lastly, NASA has access to satellite images that have been taken for years that Goddard is obviously ignoring.

Look at the coast of Bangladesh

350px-Bangladesh_Sea_Level_Risks.jpg

It's happening all over due to ice melts.
 

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,310
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
NASA has doubled 1880 to 1980 sea level rise since Hansen 1983. In 1983, NASA showed very little sea level rise after 1950. Now they show rapid sea level rise from 1950 to 1980.

This fraud should not surprise anyone, because they have also doubled global warming via data tampering during that same time period.

NASA – Doubling Sea Level Rise By Data Tampering | Real Science

Who is Hansen and why should anyone take his views over the rest of the scientific community?
 

Steve Case

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2013
Messages
1,790
Reaction score
1,180
Location
USA - Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Here's how Colorado University's Sea Level Research Group has manipulated the data over the last decade.

331k5ya.jpg
 

Steve Case

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2013
Messages
1,790
Reaction score
1,180
Location
USA - Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I am always fond of Faithers promoting CO2 as the major culprit in heat retention, when methane is far more active in that category. Why not discuss that? Probably because methane is not a major gas produced by human activity? Amazing how a La Nina can cool things despite the CO2 levels. Moving the goal posts and manipulating data is not the stuff of science sorry.

And exactly why is methane more active?
 

Steve Case

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2013
Messages
1,790
Reaction score
1,180
Location
USA - Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
https://web.archive.org/web/2004071...2004_rel1.2/sl_ib_ns_cu2004_rel1.2_global.txt
Well, Steven Godard is a denier, so we can start there. Secondly, there are no credible and objective sources reporting this, and lastly, NASA has access to satellite images that have been taken for years that Goddard is obviously ignoring.

Look at the coast of Bangladesh

View attachment 67200573

It's happening all over due to ice melts.

Stephen Godard aka Tony Heller puts up links to his stuff,
and they pan out as true if you follow them. He claims
fraud and calls people morons but what he says is true
as far as I can tell.
 

jet57

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
31,057
Reaction score
3,969
Location
not here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Here's how Colorado University's Sea Level Research Group has manipulated the data over the last decade.

331k5ya.jpg

Well, you shown a graph, but you haven't show how they manipulated the data.
 

jet57

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
31,057
Reaction score
3,969
Location
not here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
https://web.archive.org/web/2004071...2004_rel1.2/sl_ib_ns_cu2004_rel1.2_global.txt

Stephen Godard aka Tony Heller puts up links to his stuff,
and they pan out as true if you follow them. He claims
fraud and calls people morons but what he says is true
as far as I can tell.

Global warming denial is not true however, and there is no conspiracy to force green technology going on. Said technology is a product of Silicon Valley and what rich little kids do with their time ;) I'm going to watch the story, I don't think that NASA did this.
 

Steve Case

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2013
Messages
1,790
Reaction score
1,180
Location
USA - Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Well, you shown a graph, but you haven't show how they manipulated the data.
The Sea Level Research Group's web site
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
is down at the moment but here's the link to the archived data:
https://web.archive.org/web/2004071...2004_rel1.2/sl_ib_ns_cu2004_rel1.2_global.txt
When CU's Sea Level Group comes back on line, you can do the same thing I did and graph out the difference.

They have effectively bumped up the rate of sea level rise by 0.9 mm/yr.

You can jump up and down and spit wooden nickles, but you can't change that fact.
 

Steve Case

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2013
Messages
1,790
Reaction score
1,180
Location
USA - Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Global warming denial is not true however, and there is no conspiracy to force green technology going on. Said technology is a product of Silicon Valley and what rich little kids do with their time ;) I'm going to watch the story, I don't think that NASA did this.

No conspiracy Hmmm really? I apply the duck test, and what it looks like to me is exactly that.
 

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,310
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
The Sea Level Research Group's web site
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
is down at the moment but here's the link to the archived data:
https://web.archive.org/web/2004071...2004_rel1.2/sl_ib_ns_cu2004_rel1.2_global.txt
When CU's Sea Level Group comes back on line, you can do the same thing I did and graph out the difference.

They have effectively bumped up the rate of sea level rise by 0.9 mm/yr.

You can jump up and down and spit wooden nickles, but you can't change that fact.

Where and how does the data set you just linked prove that "they have effectively bumped up the rate of sea level rise by 0.9 mm/yr"?
 

saveliberty

New member
Joined
Apr 25, 2016
Messages
40
Reaction score
9
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
And exactly why is methane more active?

The Environmental Protection Agency uses a statistic called Global Warming Potential (GWP) to assess the threat posed by various greenhouse gases. GWP measures how much heat one molecule of a gas will trap relative to a molecule of carbon dioxide. Methane has a GWP of 21, which means it's 21 times more effective at preventing infrared radiation from escaping the planet.

Is methane really worse for the environment than carbon dioxide?
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
79,010
Reaction score
35,168
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Here's how Colorado University's Sea Level Research Group has manipulated the data over the last decade.

331k5ya.jpg

What your graph shows is that estimates made a decade later came out different.

Funny thing about research. It changes over time.
 

Steve Case

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2013
Messages
1,790
Reaction score
1,180
Location
USA - Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The Environmental Protection Agency uses a statistic called Global Warming Potential (GWP) to assess the threat posed by various greenhouse gases. GWP measures how much heat one molecule of a gas will trap relative to a molecule of carbon dioxide. Methane has a GWP of 21, which means it's 21 times more effective at preventing infrared radiation from escaping the planet.

Is methane really worse for the environment than carbon dioxide?

Methane has a GWP of 21, which means it's 21 times more effective at preventing infrared radiation from escaping the planet.

Uh huh, show me.

Here's a diagram of Atmospheric Absorption bands including methane:

zDOdq.png


So tell me why is methane claimed to be 21 times more effective at
preventing infrared radiation from escaping the planet than CO2?
Looks to me like its Number 4 after Ozone and Oxygen.

By the way Scientific American claims CH4 is 72 times more powerful
than CO2 or a few years later 84 times and I know I've seen over
100 times more powerful. You guys seem to make it up as you go
along. Do you need links for all of that?
 

Steve Case

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2013
Messages
1,790
Reaction score
1,180
Location
USA - Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Well, you shown a graph, but you haven't show how they manipulated the data.

331k5ya.jpg


If you plot out the data 1992 - 2004 as it was published in 2004 you will get the blue line on the graph.

If you plot out the data 1992 - 2004 as it is published today, you will get the red line on the graph.

The two plots are different. The historical data has been re-written.
 

Steve Case

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2013
Messages
1,790
Reaction score
1,180
Location
USA - Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What your graph shows is that estimates made a decade later came out different.

Funny thing about research. It changes over time.

Yes, just like the seven commandments from George Orwell's "Animal Farm" the original data changes over time.
 

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,310
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
Where and how does the data set you just linked prove that "they have effectively bumped up the rate of sea level rise by 0.9 mm/yr"?
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
79,010
Reaction score
35,168
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yes, just like the seven commandments from George Orwell's "Animal Farm" the original data changes over time.

331k5ya.jpg


If you plot out the data 1992 - 2004 as it was published in 2004 you will get the blue line on the graph.

If you plot out the data 1992 - 2004 as it is published today, you will get the red line on the graph.

The two plots are different. The historical data has been re-written.

....no, it hasn't.

New measurements came out with new results.

Here's the mistake I know you're making: you are under the impression that sea level is something you can readily measure in a singular, objective fashion. You think there's some single, "historic data" that someone has to change.

In reality, sea level is tricky to actually measure. The ocean constantly bulges out due to the moon's gravity, causing tides. The earth and its surface are also not a perfect sphere - there's a bulge at the equator. And until very recently, we had to try and measure the water from various beaches, and how much that changes. But if you measure the change in sea level on the coast of Florida and the change in sea level on the coast of Italy, you don't even come up with the same number each year.

Ocean's wiggly, basically. Tough to measure. These days we're able to measure better with advanced satellites.

So yeah, newer methodologies might come out different. Make sense?
 

MrT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2015
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
2,426
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
And exactly why is methane more active?

Methane is about 20x better at absorbing and retaining heat compared to CO2.

If you want to learn why that is the case, then I would suggest asking a physicist.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom