Suspicious climate data manipulation at NASA


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

The uncertainty of modern climate science isn’t merely because of the overall complexity of the data and the climate. Though there are numerous factors that contribute to the long term fluctuations of the climate that we do not yet completely understand or can quantify with any precision (the sun, dust, soot, volcanoes, carbon dioxide increase, to name just a few), there is a more tragic uncertainty that global warming scientists at NASA and NOAA have added to the mix, one that is entirely unjustified and harmful to the field of science and the questions that it is trying to answer.

In the case of this post, that tragic uncertainty has to do with sea level rise and the “adjustments,” without explanation, that NASA is making to its sea level data. Below is a graph taken from the link, showing the changes that have been made to published data from 1982 in order to eliminate a long period of almost no sea level rise from the mid 1950s through 1980.

Tony Heller Sea Level graph

What’s especially interesting to me is that back in the 2000s I had done an extensive review of the climate field, and found at that time that the generally accepted rate of sea level rise at the time was about 1 to 2mm per year. That number matches well with the 1982 graph, which shows a rise of slightly more than 100mm per year from 1875 to 1975.

In the last five years, however, for reasons I did not understand, climate scientists suddenly began saying that the sea had been rising for the past century at 3mm per year, not 1 to 2mm. Had new data explained the increase, such as a sudden acceleration of sea level rise after 1975, then I would willingly accept the increase, but I could find no data anywhere that justified this change. For the rate to have suddenly gone from 1 to 3mm per year would have required the 1982 data above to suddenly show after 1975 a sudden steep increase that would actually take the line off the top of the chart. Even the adjusted data here doesn’t show that much increase.

What the 2016 NASA data above does show, indicated by the blue line, is a suspicious adjustment to the past data, from around 1940 through 1980, whereby the rate of sea level rise has been changed from almost flat to an increase of almost 50mm. The change also wipes out the long flat period from the 1950s on.

Has NASA provided a reasonable explanation for this change? Not that I am aware. However, this change is consistent with all the other adjustments that NOAA and NASA have made to old data. In every single case, their adjustments have either chilled the past or heated the present, or both, thus creating a graph that shows a much greater warming in the past century than showed by all previous studies. In the case above the adjustments increase sea level rise, which also fits the same pattern, since a warming climate and faster sea level rise are supposed to go hand and hand.

Once again, if there was a reasonable explanation for these adjustments I would be willing to accept them. That they always act to confirm the theory of human caused global warming though makes me very suspicious and skeptical. The kindest analysis suggests that these changes, all in one direction, are possibly because the scientists making them are subject to confirmation bias, whereby they allow their bias in favor of global warming to blind them to any data that might contradict that conclusion. A more cynical analysis suggests that some outright fraud is going on at these government agencies, fueled by a desire for funds from politicians who want results that prove human-caused global warming is happening.

The worst thing about these changes to past data, however, is how it has introduced a new uncertainty into this problem that is difficult to measure. In fact, it makes doing climate science almost impossible, because it leaves everyone completely uncertain about what the known facts really are. Did the sea level rise 1mm a year since 1875? Or did it rise 1.5mm? Or did it rise 3mm? Who knows? The data now appears corrupt, and untrustworthy. And making it reliable again will take decades of work and a whole new generation of scientists who are willing to come at the problem with open minds.

Sadly, I am not sure we will have such a generation in the coming years.

28 comments

  • Andrew_W

    To my eyes The 1982 graph is showing a rise of 1.1 mm/yr (100 mm in the 92 years from 1890 to 1982), the 2016 graph a rise of 200 mm in 146 years (1870 – 2016) which is 1.36 mm/yr, but between 1890 and 1982 the 2016 graph rise looks to be 150 mm over 92 years which is 1.6 mm/yr.

  • Wayne

    “…behaves as if his intent, is to explain away or make an excuse, for anything…”

  • Andrew_W

    I think Bob may have misread the SLR graph for the 1993 – 2016 at the NASA site as being for the century + long period.

    If you think I’ve misunderstood, say in what way. I thought it would be OK to point out what I think is a simple error without my comment being labeled subversive.

  • Wayne

    I never said anything about “subversive.” What’s that all about? (Me thinks thou doth protest, too loudly.)

  • To my readers: I want again must note another example of how Andrew_W uses dishonest debate tactics to avoid the main subject of any post.

    The point of my post was to note how NASA scientists have changed without explanation what they admit on their own webpage is the coastal tidal data gathered from about 1870 through the present, changed so that, for the period from 1940 to 1982, they could replace data that showed almost no sea level rise for forty years and turn it into data in which the sea level was rising. My point was to note how they have no explanation for why they have done this, and that this unexplained change has made their data untrustworthy and almost useless for future research.

    Andrew_W doesn’t like this inconvenient fact. It implies that maybe the scientists who advocate the theory of human-caused global warming might be imperfect, or even corrupt. So he tries to distract the conversation by trying to find an error in my post, thinking I “may have misread the [sea level rise] graph for the 1993 – 2016 at the NASA site” that shows a 3.4mm rate of sea level rise since 1993.

    Before we go on, here is that graph at the link:
    Satellite data for sea level rise

    I did not misread that chart. I wasn’t really referring to it. I was referring to the general claim by global warming scientists, repeated in many forums in the past five years, that the sea is rising at about 3mm per year, not the 1 to 2mm they had documented consistently for most of the 20th century. This graph is merely another example that illustrates this claim.

    I am also very aware that this graph was for satellite data only, and only covered the period from 1993 to 2016. In fact there are problems fitting this satellite data with the tidal gauge data that any good scientist will immediately recognize, and that NASA’s website very carefully tries to hide.

    As I noted in my post, “for the rate to have suddenly gone from 1 to 3mm per year would have required the 1982 data above to suddenly show after 1975 a sudden steep increase that would actually take the line off the top of the chart.” To illustrate this, below is the first graph from my post with the second graph superimposed and reconfigured so that its scales now match the first graph.

    charts combined

    As you can see, according to the satellite data, the rate of sea level rise has suddenly shot up gigantically. Could this be real, could the rate of sea level have risen so suddenly and so fast? Of course. The difference however in rate between the tidal gauges and the satellites is so large that any good scientist would immediately question it and ask a lot of other questions first. Is there a calibration error? Are the satellites and tidal gauges measuring different things? In fact, what do the tidal gauges measure after 1993? For some mysterious reason NASA’s website doesn’t show us that. I suspect they don’t show it because the two data sources are in conflict, and they don’t have a good explanation for that conflict. Instead, they’d rather emphasize global warming and how it is causing us all to drown by the rising seas.

    Back to Andrew_W. It is true that my post could have been clearer, but Andrew_W’s effort to distract us is beside the point. My main point remains: NASA scientists have adjusted the data from past research, have done so in a manner that bolsters their pet theories, have not explained why, and are therefore subject to skepticism and suspicion.

    I once again note his dishonest debate tactics not to educate him, since I know he will ignore this lesson. I note it so my readers will recognize it.

  • Andrew_W

    In the post:
    In the last five years, however, for reasons I did not understand, climate scientists suddenly began saying that the sea had been rising for the past century at 3mm per year, not 1 to 2mm.

    My bold.

    For the rate to have suddenly gone from 1 to 3mm per year would have required the 1982 data above to suddenly show after 1975 a sudden steep increase that would actually take the line off the top of the chart.

    Where is it that climate scientists are claiming the increase in the rate of SLR dates back to 1975? The NASA site shows that rate of rise from 1993.

    I’ve no idea why the flat period between 1950 and 1982 has disappeared, and I’m not advancing any hypothesis without data.

  • Garry

    Unfortunately, it appears that Mr. Z made a small error in writing; according to NASA, the 3.4 mm / year rise is since 1993, but, as Andrew points out, Mr. Z wrote that NASA claimed it was over the last century.

    Even more unfortunately, Andrew seized on this small error, thereby providing a distraction from the larger point that NASA is apparently manipulating climate data to further their political agenda.

    Andrew, if you had not displayed extreme troll-like behavior, perhaps Mr. Z (and others) would have taken your comment as pointing out a simple error. If I had seen that error and felt the need to point it out, I would have provided some context to make it clear that the overall point stands, but there is a small error in wording. Instead, give your recent behavior, it appears that you’re trying to invalidate the whole post by a distraction.

    In your most recent post, you went even further in trying to distract. Are you not suspicious at all at NASA’s manipulation of data in only one direction? You have no idea? Really, no idea at all?

    Now I’ll attempt to get the discussion back on track.

    When I clicked on the link, I couldn’t believe how NASA made their site a blatant piece of propaganda! They prominently display the word “Facts,” to show the alleged lack of bias. They have a tab for “scientific consensus,” and a quick look showed me that they put the “97% or more of climate scientists agree” front and center. No wonder a bunch of their former employees decided to set up http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/

    It’ dismaying to me that NASA went from a can-do, bold outfit that orchestrated some of mankind’s greatest achievements, to a cheap propaganda organ. NASA once held a huge store of credibility with me, but they’ve completely abused that.

  • Andrew_W

    Garry.
    I agree that NASA shouldn’t be operating as an advocacy group. I don’t know why the corrections go in the direction they do. NASA claims all it’s data has been publicly available for nine years, I assume that if they were lying that those wishing to scrutinize the data would have mentioned a lack of access by now. Politically I’m a Classical Liberal/Libertarian, simply disagreeing with the host and other commenters here has lead to a lot of misrepresentation of my position by them based on the assumption that I must be a leftist. I just mentioned on another thread that I’ve just looked at the CATO Institute site and find I agree with pretty much all of their positions. That includes Former Cato President Ed Crane’s opinions on Conservatives.

  • To my readers: It is incredibly instructive to observe the willful blindness of the modern elite intellectual, and Andrew_W is giving us a wonderful opportunity to study that blindness. He wrote: ” I don’t know why the corrections go in the direction they do. NASA claims all it’s data has been publicly available for nine years, I assume that if they were lying that those wishing to scrutinize the data would have mentioned a lack of access by now.” [emphasis mine]

    Gee, Andrew_W, can’t imagine why the data adjustments only go in one direction. And he can’t imaging there is any hanky-panky because the data has been publicly available for years, and as far as he knows, no one has complained of a lack of access.

    Heh. Too bad he didn’t notice the link I provided in my post:

    300 climate scientists demand NOAA explain its global warming climate data

    Too bad he didn’t read it, where it said the following: “Three hundred climate scientists have signed a letter demanding that NOAA stop stonewalling the Congressioinal investigation of the agency’s repeated adjustments to raw climate data so that the record shows increased warming, when there is none.”

    I know he will immediately say this is NOAA, not NASA, but then that is because he didn’t look at the second link I provided with my post:

    A detailed review of the climate data tampering at NASA and NOAA

    Too bad he didn’t read the link provided by me, as it outlined in great detail the data tampering at both NOAA and NASA, highlighted again today by my post on sea level. As with NOAA, NASA has not been forthcoming with any clear explanation for these adjustments, other than the obtuse explanation that Andrew_W gave us previously and that is not sufficient in the real practice of science. With real scientists, skeptics would be allowed to review the adjustments in great detail, and to challenge them. This NASA has not allowed. Instead, it will take Congressional investigations here as well to get some real understanding of these adjustments, which only tells me once again that something fishy is going on.

    Andrew_W, however, is like the three blind mice. He can’t imagine why the data tampering only goes in one direction. There must be some explanation! Maybe I and those 300 scientists imagine it! Maybe, because we are evil close-minded conservatives, we made it up! Those scientists and NASA and NOAA have got to be right. They are the authorities in these matters. How dare we doubt them!

    As I said, it is instructive to observe this. It shows us why our intellectual elite society today is so bankrupt. It also illustrates to me once again why a dark age is coming. The ability to doubt authority is fading. After five hundred years, the Enlightenment is finally going dark.

  • Andrew_W

    Andrew_W, however, is like the three blind mice. He can’t imagine why the data tampering only goes in one direction.

    Firstly, I didn’t say “I can’t imagine why the corrections were causing the changes claimed”, I said “I don’t know why the corrections go in the direction they do.”
    Shocking as it may seem, I don’t know, and neither do you, all you’re doing is guessing and throwing innuendo.

    Secondly it wasn’t “300 climate scientists”, it wasn’t even “300 scientists”, it was (not my claim, the claim of the promoters of the petition) “25 climate or atmospheric scientists”, and other people. perhaps 200 of them scientists, and of the “25 climate or atmospheric scientists” the majority are retired.

    But of course, even if it was just one climate scientist claiming that he was denied access to the data he required to verify the adjustments being made were justified there would be a case to answer.

    But that’s not what the petition was even claiming, all the petition demanded was: “We, the undersigned, scientists, engineers, economists and others, who have looked carefully into the effects of carbon dioxide released by human activities, wish to record our support for the efforts of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology to ensure that federal agencies complied with federal guidelines that implemented the Data Quality Act,”

    No mention that they were being denied access to the data they required to check to see if NOAA’s corrections were justified. If they’re unhappy with the methodology they should simply produce their own corrected temperature record.

  • INSOMNiUS

    Why can’t you see that this agenda is getting worse, Andrew_W?
    Here’s the crap!

  • INSOMNiUS

    “As I said, it is instructive to observe this. It shows us why our intellectual elite society today is so bankrupt. It also illustrates to me once again why a dark age is coming. The ability to doubt authority is fading. After five hundred years, the Enlightenment is finally going dark.”

    Why can’t you see that this agenda, http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/07/feds-paid-709000-to-academic-who-studies-how-glaciers-are-sexist/, is getting worse, Andrew_W?
    And here is the crap! http://booksc.org/book/49373224

    Our colleges are dying!

  • Localfluff

    100 mm in a hundred years!??! Jesus H Christ, this is God punishing us with a second Deluge for our sins! We better kill billions and billions of people by abolishing all science, industry, energy, transportation and agriculture to repent.

    By the way, how does climate science prove what economic decisions we should make? What economics competence do climate scientists have? Shouldn’t it be up to the people to choose whether to continue gradually adapting to the eternally changing climate, or to try to change the climate? What climate is the ideal one? Isn’t an unscientific value judgement, a personal opinion, required to answer that? All of these important issues are completely ignored in the “debate” which tends to focus on temperatures and millimeter water level, which are completely irrelevant to the conclusion about whether human kind should have an economy or not.

  • INSOMNiUS

    Why can’t you see that this agenda is getting worse?
    Here’s the crap!

  • Andrew_W

    Localfluff. On the topic of the cost of SLR I’m with you, the rate of rise is too slow to really present a serious financial cost to society, buildings usually pay for themselves within 40 years or so and a lot of them are knocked down and replaced soon after reaching that age. So basically the turnover of infrastructure is fast enough to make any cost insignificant.

  • INSOMNiUS

    “As I said, it is instructive to observe this. It shows us why our intellectual elite society today is so bankrupt. It also illustrates to me once again why a dark age is coming. The ability to doubt authority is fading. After five hundred years, the Enlightenment is finally going dark.”

    And it continues to get worse!
    Here’s the proof!

  • Localfluff

    @Andrew_W Great! You are insightful after all! Thank you, I don’t have to worry about you anymore.

  • Garry

    If I ever go back to New Zealand and get into legal trouble, I’m getting Andrew W as my defense lawyer. He’s got just the right mix of obtuseness, distraction with minor details, unwillingness to acknowledge anyone else’s point, and stubborn single-mindedness to be that guy that drives you crazy (if you let him) until he’s on your side under desperate circumstances.

    Since I have no plans to go back to New Zealand, and have never done anything to get myself in legal trouble, I’d be better off just ignoring everything he writes when he decides it’s time to troll.

  • Insomnious: There is no need to post your comment multiple times. When you include more than one link, the comment is held for moderation. This is done because many spam robots send out fake comments with many links. Just wait a little while and your comment will appear, when I can get to it.

  • To my readers: In posting my last comment about Andrew_W’s intellectually dishonest debate tactics, I forgot to predict something that I am now kicking myself for forgetting. You see, I was also going to predict that when Andrew_W finally looks at this link, 300 climate scientists demand NOAA explain its global warming climate data, his first reaction was going to be the same as every other global warming believer who has shown up here on BtB. He was going to first look at the credentials of the 300 petition signers, discover that many are not climate scientists, and thus sigh with relief. The petition can be ignored. I was also going to predict that he would ignore the fact that NOAA had been subpoenaed by Congress precisely because it has been stonewalling its investigation into the data adjustments.

    As expected, he has done exactly this.

    What I wouldn’t have predicted but should have was Andrew_W’s concluding comment: “If they’re unhappy with the methodology they should simply produce their own corrected temperature record.” In his willful blindness we have now come full circle. The entire point of original post was to note that some scientists have published their own “corrected” temperature record. Their “corrections” were even better, as they didn’t adjust anything but merely dug down and provided us the raw uncorrected data, thus revealing the suspicious nature of the adjusted data from NOAA and NASA.

    When I first made this point, Andrew_W didn’t want to look at this “corrected” raw data or the facts it revealed. So he distracted himself by talking about minor side issues. Now, several comments later, when he hopes most people have forgotten the main original point of the post, he now notes that if there was a problem with the adjusted data someone would have published a corrected version illustrating that problem, and he hasn’t seen that.

    Of course he hasn’t seen it. It is right in front of his nose, in my original post, but to look at it and absorb it and learn from it would require him to question authority, something he has a real problem doing.

    I once again note this not as an attempt to educate Andrew_W, whom Gary notes quite correctly will never acknowledge honestly the positions of those with whom he debates, and thus can never learn from them. I note this for my readers, so they can better understand the willful blindness of today’s modern intellectual, and how that willful blindness is taking us all into a dark age.

  • Andrew_W

    Garry, I’ll re-re-re-restate my position on AGW, I believe it’s very likely happening (if you increase GH gas concentrations the GH effect is logically going to be stronger), but I remain unpersuaded that catastrophic AGW is likely.

    I think I’ve been consistent, neither side is going to change my mind with out good evidence, if I see an error in a claim I’m going to point it out. Bob, I think, is only demanding good evidence from the “warmists” and doesn’t feel the need to critique anything offered by the “skeptics” (has he Ever put up a post saying “this skeptic claim is poorly constructed?”) I do not believe he is objective, and true scientific skeptics I believe must be skeptical of all claims, not just the claims of one side.

    INSOMNiUS, I don’t rate Warmist hating and Skeptic hating blogs written by armchair experts highly as a source of information, only the links they might contain written by people who study the issues as scientists.

  • wodun

    I enjoy reading a vigorous debate and while I often disagree with him, Andrew_W puts in a lot of effort and shows a nimbleness of thought when dealing with more than one person.

    Discussions like this are always best when they are a little contentious because it means we are going to get some good information and that information will also come with some good critiques.

    This is exactly how debate about science is supposed to go and on the majority of websites, discussions like this are not possible because of the banhammer.

    So, I hope everyone keeps fighting the good fight and not to let disagreement get under your skin too much. This is one of the few places these discussions take place.

  • INSOMNiUS

    Sorry for the mess. I also have had problems posting. The response of “the comment is held for moderation” never showed up the first few times. I had to reload my web-browser for that message to finally show up. Also, I wasn’t sure if I had clicked the reCAPTHA or I had posted too many links.
    Thanks for the info.

  • INSOMNiUS

    “I don’t rate Warmist hating and Skeptic hating blogs” Andrew_W

    What about the news “Feds Paid $709,000 To Academic Who Studies” or the data that was written by “‘professors & scientists'”?

    Granted, these facts are extreme examples. But this demonstrates that “academics is becoming a bureaucracy that bows to authority INSTEAD of science!”

  • Andrew_W

    I disagree with Bob’s claim that raw data should be used:
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/feb/08/no-climate-conspiracy-noaa-temperature-adjustments-bring-data-closer-to-pristine

    Though it’s notable that the adjustments NOAA makes do not have the major effect skeptics claim.
    It’s notable that the adjustments do not all act to increase the rate of temperature increase
    And it should be noted that skeptics (actually luke warmers) Spencer and Christie at UAH are on their 6th versions:
    “Version 6 of the UAH MSU/AMSU global satellite temperature dataset is by far the most extensive revision of the procedures and computer code we have ever produced in over 25 years of global temperature monitoring.” From Dr. Spencer’s blog. So they also accept the need to make corrections to data sets.

  • Steve Earle

    Robert Zimmerman said:
    “…I note this for my readers, so they can better understand the willful blindness of today’s modern intellectual, and how that willful blindness is taking us all into a dark age….”

    Correct. And thank you Bob for your efforts here, they are appreciated.

  • Edward

    Robert,
    Some lessons that I have learned from observing the willful blindness of the modern elite intellectual.

    He implies that he will change his mind if there is “good evidence,” but this is untrue. In another thread, he claimed that Islam can be reformed, but when evidence was presented to him from the bad book itself (Koran) showing that those who question or deny what is in that bad book are to be ignored and their statements dismissed by all Muslims, yet he continued with his position. His mind is not changed, even though the evidence is conclusive.

    His points are either so poorly expressed that no one understands what he meant, or else he changes his point after it is proved incorrect (Hillary Cinton does this on topics of emails, Benghazi, her health, and even cattle futures). Either way, it makes discussion onerous. He finds it necessary to re-re-re-restate positions, because he thinks that the first four times he was unclear. In actuality, however, he changes his position, with each restatement, for instance, from sticking to believing AGW is happening to believing it’s very likely happening. A seemingly subtle difference, but the added words dramatically change the meaning, adding additional inconsistency to his arguments yet allowing for him to use the subtlety, and assumed poor memories on our part, to declare himself consistent nonetheless.

    Without being able to explain what conservativism is, he believes that he is one, because some website has positions he thinks he agrees with, but does he really express those positions when the time comes? Like Jane Goodall, he tries to blend in, thinking that we are too stupid to notice — after all, he believes, it is he who is the smart one, not us.

    Rather than know his topic and use the internet to support his argument, he uses the internet to form his argument, with the advantage of allowing him to ignore all facts contrary to his argument. It does not matter that the elite intellectual does not know the topic that he argues, he looks up a factoid on the internet, declares it to be true (because if it’s on the internet, it must be true), and uses it at definitive proof of whatever he argues. He alone is the arbiter of what web sites and what information is valid, but that is because he is so intellectual that he is the only one smart enough to understand correct from incorrect.

    He declares an argument to be unsound if it does not include a critique of anything offered by his opponent, such as AGW skeptics, yet he does not feel the need to live up to that same standard. His arguments require no standards, but he applies various standards to his opposition in order to avoid the appearance of having lost his argument. Once again, he appears to be always right, because he thinks of himself as too intellectual to ever be wrong.

    As you noted, Robert, the modern elite intellectual “will never acknowledge honestly the positions of those with whom he debates.” I do not yet know why, but my current hypothesis is that to admit another position is possible presents the necessity of proving it wrong in order for the intellectual to remain correct. After all, an elite intellectual honestly believes that he is so smart that he would know it if he were wrong. Thus he must always be right, even at those times when he eventually figures out that he was wrong. Thus, a scientific consensus may be declared, scientific debate can be ruled as over, and all opposing views can legitimately be ignored, mocked, scoffed at, and denied (without the elite intellectual being called a denier, of course).

    The elite intellectual does not need to understand the fundamentals of science, such as what is a hypothesis and what is a theory — he is too elite for such mundane knowledge. Hypotheses do not require data in order to form them; they only require observation in order to make an educated guess. As data is gathered and interpreted into knowledge and eventual understanding, the hypothesis is modified or even rejected until a theory is formed, but without the hypothesis, there is no basis for what data to collect in order to test the hypothesis.

    However, even Nobel winning theories can be eventually proved wrong – and not in the ‘needs modification’ way, but in the incorrect data or incorrect data interpretation way. Science is tricky to perform, as it is very easy to fool oneself. Robert, you noted confirmation bias as a possible source for error, but there are many other ways to mess up, such as not understanding the statistics and statistical methods used – many scientists and engineers and even statisticians do not, as this is also a tricky area of mathematics. Even among statisticians, there is debate on what methods are preferred and how to interpret the math.

    The elite intellectual can determine whether raw data is valid. Indeed, to him data that has been adjusted can be declared “closer to pristine,” even though in the real world of science, this is how data is fudged.

    Wodun is incorrect: “This is exactly how debate about science is supposed to go”

    Debate about science is supposed to be scientific, logical, and avoid fallacies. Many, most, or all the tactics that our resident modern elite intellectual uses are not conducive to good scientific debate. Summarily rejecting evidence that does not agree with a point is not correct. Changing one’s argument while claiming consistency creates confusion, not reasoned debate.

    Evidence must be incorporated into any hypothesis as the theory is formed. And modifying data in order to make it fit the hypothesis is absolutely forbidden, as it is a sure sign that the hypothesis is wrong; this should be a large red flag in the debate, not treated as correct procedure.

  • m d mill

    Virtually all peer (or should i say pier!) reviewed statistical analysis of global tide gauge measurements conclude a roughly CONSTANT RATE of < or = 2 mm per year sea level rise global average (plus some zero sum rate variations in addition to) over the last 100 years. During the same period CO2 concentration RATES have changed by over 400% !!!! (large rate change starting at about 1965). There is virtually no correlation!! Tide gauges have long provided a very simple and accurate technology for sea level measurement (when the pipes are pounded into the lower bedrock) .
    This is a case where the science is almost certainly settled. I gave up worrying about Anthropogenic Global sea level rise long ago…it's a non-issue. The NASA claims are ludicrous.

    As to satellite measurements versus tide gauges…if you are standing on the beach and want to know if your feet are getting wet, do you look up to a satellite(trying to measure a millimeter change from 100+ miles above) or down to your feet?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *