- Joined
- Jan 10, 2015
- Messages
- 14,012
- Reaction score
- 3,439
- Location
- Southern Oregon
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Be prepared for the usual beatdown by the Lefties.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
Here's how Colorado University's Sea Level Research Group has manipulated the data over the last decade.
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.
The Sea Level Research Group's web siteWell, you shown a graph, but you haven't show how they manipulated the data.
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 timeI'm going to watch the story, I don't think that NASA did this.
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.
And exactly why is methane more active?
Here's how Colorado University's Sea Level Research Group has manipulated the data over the last decade.
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?
Well, you shown a graph, but you haven't show how they manipulated the data.
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.
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.
And exactly why is methane more active?
Be prepared for the usual beatdown by the Lefties.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?