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

[Steve Case]

As methodology updates, past data can be updated to reflect it. The fact that the estimates are different now is not proof of fraud.

I dunno, there's something funny about this story. Something's not adding up, and it ain't NASA or UC.

Yes, when they update their data they change the entire time series
and what's fishy is that all things Climate Change/Global Warming
always seem to get nudged & budged one way.

By the way, since they update all the data for each improvement, it
turns out that today's data shows that the rate of sea level rise as
measured by the satellites has decreased. Here's what that looks like:

Today's data says that the rate in 2006 was nearly 3.7 mm/yr declined to
a little over 3.2 mm/yr by 2012 and since then has rebounded to 3.3 mm/yr.

 

[longview]

Yes, when they update their data they change the entire time series
and what's fishy is that all things Climate Change/Global Warming
always seem to get nudged & budged one way.

By the way, since they update all the data for each improvement, it
turns out that today's data shows that the rate of sea level rise as
measured by the satellites has decreased. Here's what that looks like:

Today's data says that the rate in 2006 was nearly 3.7 mm/yr declined to
a little over 3.2 mm/yr by 2012 and since then has rebounded to 3.3 mm/yr.

What I find strange about that chart, is that that the accuracy of the satellites do not allow for it.
Technology

To take a measurement, the onboard altimeter bounces these pulses off the ocean surface and measures the time it takes the pulses to return to the spacecraft. This measurement, multiplied by the speed of light, gives the range from the satellite to the ocean surface. After correction for atmospheric and instrumental effects, the range measurements are accurate to less than 3 centimeters.

Accurate to less than 3 cm, or 30 mm, hum! Since there answer is a bit subjective,
I can give them the absolute best theoretical accuracy their device could produce, of 22 mm.
What does this mean? If they say satellites tell them the sea level is rising at 3.1 mm per year,
it would take 7 years to show movement in one low order bit.
Since the entire rate of change on the graph is like 8 times less than the minimum accuracy
of the satellite, the result would be a straight horizontal line.

 

[Lord of Planar]

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

Climate dot NASA dot gov is not a scientifically accredited sub-site, even though it's sponsored by NASA.

Search the credentials of the people running it. You will laugh:

Site Editor: Holly Shaftel
Site Manager: Randal Jackson
Senior Science Editor: Laura Tenenbaum

 

[Deuce]

Here are links to the two data sets:

#version_2004_rel1.2

#version_2014_rel3

The wayback machine doesn't have 2014 release 2 so release 3 will have to do.
And CU's web site is still down today.

Doesn't matter though, if you download into your Excel spreadsheet and use
Excel's slope function it's rather easy to duplicate that graph and come to the
conclusion that the data has been changed. Why it's been changed is a matter
of opinion but that it has been changed is a matter of fact.

Yes, but you're the one assuming ulterior motive.

 

[Lord of Planar]

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.

CO2 is the stronger greenhouse gas. There is mathematical trickery involved to make CH4 more threatening.

Look, you asked me a question and I supplied the answer. Point is methane is a better heat retainer than CO2. The article explained why.

The article doesn't explain why. It tells people ignorant of the facts, what to believe.

The incredibly small percentage changes in CO2 levels that the Faithers claim are sending us into global flooding would be much worse if that same percentage was methane. It would be fairly easy for volcanoes to vent that much methane by the way. Volcanoes which have absolutely nothing to do with people running around the planet.

Really?

Using AR4 WG1 page 141 numbers, methane has increased by 148%, more than doubling from 1750 to 2005, but only caused a 0.48 W/m^2 warming. CO2 increased 36% and caused more than three times the warming at 1.66 W/m^2.

The GWP (global warming potential) numbers do not reflect reality of normal changes. GWP is loosely based on RE (radiative efficiency) which is also mathematical trickery for the masses.

To get RE, we calculate the warming of a gas at the current level, and the warming when only 1 ppb (part per billion) of gas is added. It is then the straight line slope. It is simply an instantaneous slope value, which on a log curve, diminished as the value increases. Since there is roughly 200 times more CO2 in the atmosphere than CH4, on a log curve, this slope for CH4 is much steeper.

GWP is based in a similar manner, but done by global mass numbers, with a slope drawn between the starting mass, and a ton added. Since it is based on mass rather than molecules, CH4 already has an advantage of a 44:16 ratio, or improperly seen as 2.75 times stronger if they were equal molecule to molecule.

So...

On the RE slope, CH4 is about 26 times stronger. Multiply that by the 2.75 times, and that's how you get GWP ranges for CH4 as high as 72 times that of CO2.

RE of CH4 is 3.7 E-4

RE of CO2 is 1.4 E-5

0.00037 / 0.000014 = 26.4

26.4 x 2.75 = 72.7

See page 212.

I plotted log curves some years back using the values from the AR4 to get my curves. My numbers don't match the AR4, but are close. This is a graphical representation of CO2, CH4, and N2O for their RE and power vs. levels:

 

[Lord of Planar]

Oh...

My RE numbers are 1000 times larger because I plotted in ppm, when the changes are based on ppb. My calculations are based on a 0.001 ppm change which means they plotted the slope accurately. Excel's feature gave values based on ppm rather than ppb, because my X axis is in ppm.

Shouldn't be anything to fret about.

 

[Lord of Planar]

What I find strange about that chart, is that that the accuracy of the satellites do not allow for it.
Technology

Accurate to less than 3 cm, or 30 mm, hum! Since there answer is a bit subjective,
I can give them the absolute best theoretical accuracy their device could produce, of 22 mm.
What does this mean? If they say satellites tell them the sea level is rising at 3.1 mm per year,
it would take 7 years to show movement in one low order bit.
Since the entire rate of change on the graph is like 8 times less than the minimum accuracy
of the satellite, the result would be a straight horizontal line.

It's a statistical analysis. it has a certain percentage of being +/- that number.

However... most of us realize that:

1) facts make statistics
2) statistics do not make facts
3) liars use statistics

Reminds me of 2014 being the hottest year, even though there was A 62% chance it wasn't.

 

[longview]

It's a statistical analysis. it has a certain percentage of being +/- that number.

However... most of us realize that:

1) facts make statistics
2) statistics do not make facts
3) liars use statistics

Reminds me of 2014 being the hottest year, even though there was A 62% chance it wasn't.

I know that after one minimum bit is past, they can infer a slope in the years between,
but the graph shows changes in rate in sun 1 mm per year, that is beyond the capability.

 

[VanceMack]

I played college football. In my will, my kids are instructed to review the research. I'm pretty sure the research will show that I won the Heisman. Twice.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Using AR4 WG1 page 141 numbers,


See page 212.

Page 141 is table 2.1, and page 212 is table 2.12. Here are links for these tables:

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-3.html

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-10-2.html

 

[Lord of Planar]

I know that after one minimum bit is past, they can infer a slope in the years between,
but the graph shows changes in rate in sun 1 mm per year, that is beyond the capability.

Like I said, liars use statistics.

 

[Deuce]

I played college football. In my will, my kids are instructed to review the research. I'm pretty sure the research will show that I won the Heisman. Twice.

Worthy contribution sir. Bravo.

 

[VanceMack]

Worthy contribution sir. Bravo.

I thought so.
Come on, Deuce. How many times have we seen this played out? "Its the end of the world! ****...no...wait...I mean...its not...yet...but..soon...no...dammit...still no. Wait..We calculated things wrong. NOW its the end of the worl....gaaaaaawddamit...back to the computers....add 2, carry the 4...move xb6 to ng4...post $$$...Eureka! Its JUST LIKE WE SAID!"

And you say "I KNEW it would work out!"

And the very last polar pear died of a broken heart.

 

[Deuce]

I thought so.
Come on, Deuce. How many times have we seen this played out? "Its the end of the world! ****...no...wait...I mean...its not...yet...but..soon...no...dammit...still no. Wait..We calculated things wrong. NOW its the end of the worl....gaaaaaawddamit...back to the computers....add 2, carry the 4...move xb6 to ng4...post $$$...Eureka! Its JUST LIKE WE SAID!"

And you say "I KNEW it would work out!"

And the very last polar pear died of a broken heart.

You are the one who says "the end of the world" in every goddamned thread. Just you. Nobody else. Why do you believe the world is going to end?

And do I have to pull out my quote about polar bears again? Somebody around here had it as a signature for a bit...

 

[grip]

I promise you that for every person here, eventually, the world will end. And most likely at some unforeseen moment 'all life' will also be mutually exterminated.

 

[VanceMack]

You are the one who says "the end of the world" in every goddamned thread. Just you. Nobody else. Why do you believe the world is going to end?

And do I have to pull out my quote about polar bears again? Somebody around here had it as a signature for a bit...

:lamo

Gosh...I just don't know WHERE he gloom and doom scenarios come from. It's not like it hasn't been the AGW theme song since its inception.

And please. Feel free to repost a silly quote that excuses the lies told by the AGW crowd about the very last polar bear.

 

[Kal'Stang]

The first example I can think of is recalibrating tidal gauges based on newer satellite data, and then readjusting past tidal gauge data based on that.

The alternative is, what, exactly? The same research group just changed all their numbers 10 years later, published both sets of data, and hoped nobody would notice? You'd think people intent on deception wouldn't, you know, publish their deception.

OPs source cited two studies of sea level change. Later in the thread another poster presented two more studies of sea level change.

How many of these four studies did you read?

Two problems with this. From what I understand our satellite technology has a few bugs in it when measuring that small of a detail from so far away. We are after all talking about mm's and not feet, not even centimeters. Ground devices are more reliable. Second why would they recalibrate measurements taken over a decade ago? How could they? Particularly since satellite technology isn't as accurate as ground devices that they used a decade ago? As I said, once a measurement has been taken that measurement does not change just because new technology arrives. The past is the past. Even if satellite technology was a hundred times more accurate today than the devices they used a decade ago they cannot change that past data based on what is happening today as there are so many variables in ocean movement that they cannot all be taken account of sufficiently to change measurement data from the past.

And no, I didn't read the studies. 1: I'm not a climatologist. I wouldn't understand that gobbledegook. 2: my argument isn't based so much on whether those studies are accurate or forged as much as I'm just showing possible ways or reasons in which the graphs differ. I'm more or less playing devils advocate. You see I know that climate changes. That is a fact of life. I've no interest in disputing that fact. I think that those that do are silly.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The only reason GPS is as accurate as it is, is the number of satellites we receive signals from simultaneously. It takes a minimum of three GPS satellites to get a location on a map, and a minimum of four satellites to extrapolate elevation too. Changing atmospheric composition and temperate skews these results, so they aren't as accurate as we would like. Now when using a single microwave sounder from a single satellite at a time, there is no accurate depth perception. The atmosphere changes too much to maintain stable readings, and too many things change the atmosphere to compensate for. Even if we can create a reasonably accurate algorithm, there are simply too many variable we don't monitor in real time.

 

[MickeyW]

Climate dot NASA dot gov is not a scientifically accredited sub-site, even though it's sponsored by NASA.

Search the credentials of the people running it. You will laugh:

Site Editor: Holly Shaftel
Site Manager: Randal Jackson
Senior Science Editor: Laura Tenenbaum

I laugh every time they talk about GW and CC......

 

[Deuce]

:lamo

Gosh...I just don't know WHERE he gloom and doom scenarios come from. It's not like it hasn't been the AGW theme song since its inception.

And please. Feel free to repost a silly quote that excuses the lies told by the AGW crowd about the very last polar bear.

Can't be arsed to find the original but:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/envir...27-endangered-polar-bears.html#post1065427909

Also, I must reiterate once again on these boards that polar bears are ice monsters and I have no concern whatsoever for the well being of ice monsters.

And, again, you are the only "doom and gloom" person in every one of these threads. You are the only one bringing up massive catastrophes and the end of the world and the word "doom" at all. Just you.

 

[Poor Debater]

Look, you asked me a question and I supplied the answer. Point is methane is a better heat retainer than CO2. The article explained why. The incredibly small percentage changes in CO2 levels that the Faithers claim are sending us into global flooding would be much worse if that same percentage was methane. It would be fairly easy for volcanoes to vent that much methane by the way. Volcanoes which have absolutely nothing to do with people running around the planet.

Here's a graph of atmospheric methane levels for the past 2000 years:

Perhaps you can explain why the big jump started right at the point when humans started coal mining. How did the volcanoes know we were doing that?

 

[Deuce]

Here's a graph of atmospheric methane levels for the past 2000 years:

Perhaps you can explain why the big jump started right at the point when humans started coal mining. How did the volcanoes know we were doing that?

They're learning.

 

[saveliberty]

How are you going to collect the methane from melting permafrost? We are talking about millions of acres in some of the most in hospital areas of the world.

As for the timelines, you are partially correct in saying that I was wrong. Methane lasts 12 years, but CO2 does have a warming scale of anywhere from 500 - 1000 years. And either way, the fact that CO2 does have such a lasting impact on the climate does warrant additional scrutiny when compared to methane.

Ambulances?

 

[saveliberty]

Here's a graph of atmospheric methane levels for the past 2000 years:

Perhaps you can explain why the big jump started right at the point when humans started coal mining. How did the volcanoes know we were doing that?

Maybe you can explain why they didn't use the same methodology all through the chart first.

 

[saveliberty]

I promise you that for every person here, eventually, the world will end. And most likely at some unforeseen moment 'all life' will also be mutually exterminated.

Yes, but my cockroach investment will be worth trillions!