• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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!

Climate Alarmists Caught Faking Sea Level Rise

Comparing the monthly data from the PSMSL for Aden,
with the NOAA date does appear to show some creative editing.
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.data/44.rlrdata
For the NOAA data you have to export the csv.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.htm?stnid=485-001
NOAA PSMSL Delta
1879 3 6.768 1879.2084 6995 0 0 227
1893 12 6.78 1893.9584 6959 0 0 179
2010 11 7.329 2010.875 7110 11 0 -219
It is clear that the earlier "adjustments" made NOAA's reading lower than their PSMSL source,
while the later "adjustments" made NOAA's readings higher than their PSMSL source.
Almost 450 mm of "adjustment" in the 130 year record.
 
You seem to be continually missing the point, as you trumpet your fringe scientists and their connections to respected scientific organizations, but dismiss the organizations when they don’t say what you want them to say.

I don't dismiss them; I just think they're on the wrong side of history.
 
My opinion is it was changed to fit their political agenda.

So far I have a sample of one. If no other tide gauge stations are manipulated in
a similar manner or if there are sizable number but it can be reasonably said that
corrections go both ways. It would be prudent to withhold any negative judgement.
At this point it's nowhere near a dead certainty that bias is contaminating NOAA's
treatment of the PSMSL data.

Up until recently I had been under the impression that the NOAA imports PSMSL
data without modification. Such is not the case.
 
So far I have a sample of one. If no other tide gauge stations are manipulated in
a similar manner or if there are sizable number but it can be reasonably said that
corrections go both ways. It would be prudent to withhold any negative judgement.
At this point it's nowhere near a dead certainty that bias is contaminating NOAA's
treatment of the PSMSL data.

Up until recently I had been under the impression that the NOAA imports PSMSL
data without modification. Such is not the case.
For the non US tide stations they say the data source is the PSMSL,
but For Aden, they did change the numbers.
 
I see we've now heard from the silly and shallow participants.

For those interested in substance:

". . . The whistle was blown by two Australian scientists Dr. Albert Parker and Dr. Clifford Ollier in a paper for Earth Systems and Environment.
The paper – Is the Sea Level Stable at Aden, Yemen?examines the discrepancies between raw and adjusted sea level data in Aden, Karachi and Mumbai. . . ."

Considering the amount of ice and 90% of the ice is already underwater.....I think we are safe. Are their any studies on the ice over land at the caps?
 
The choice of messenger virtually guarantees that the issue is bull****.

Here are the two links to the monthly data in question:

PSMSL ADEN Monthly Mean Sea Level Data


NOAA 485-001 Aden, Yemen Mean Sea Level Trends Export to text

You can down load the data and run the numbers yourself. Avail yourself of
Mr.Excel.com or the nearest high school kid if you need help to do it. What
you will find, is that it's not B.S. that the NOAA data has been changed from
the original PSMSL data. The overall rate shows an increase from over 1 mm/yr
to a little over 3 mm/year.

I can guess that you might not like to find that out. Or maybe you already agree
that it has changed, and that it's just a matter of why.
 
Considering the amount of ice and 90% of the ice is already underwater.....I think we are safe. Are their any studies on the ice over land at the caps?

Sure. Sorry I can't look them up right now. Mrs. Hays and I are headed out to a Christmas party.
 
The Breitbart story is true, the data was changed.


My father-in-law flew photo recon over the Iwo Jima invasion.
The photo below might have been taken from the plane he piloted.

fig15.jpg


He was from Minnesota farm country and had the rural accent
that you seem to relish making fun of. Smarmy liberals like
you really do piss me off.

Hm, let me get this straight - your father-in-law flew photo recon over Iwo Jima, and so (1) global warming must be false, and (2) we're "smarmy liberals" for calling out Breitbart for skewing the facts (again)?

Just to let you know, I voted for Reagan and Bush 41, and I spent 20 years in the Navy. I do have a clue as to what it means to be conservative. Unfortunately, with Iran-Contra and the rise of the pundits and the Religious Right - and now the rise of the alt-right and "white nationalism" - y'all have forgotten what conservatism really is. I mean, y'all are defending a guy who has publicly and repeatedly taken the word of Putin - an ex-KGB colonel - over that of our FBI, NSA, and CIA? What the hell happened to the GOP? Y'all are waving American flags while at the same time taking the word of a freaking ex-KGB colonel over our FBI, CIA, and NSA! Have you forgotten what patriotism is, what patriotism demands?

Reagan once said that he never left the Democratic party, but the Democratic party left him. Likewise, I didn't leave the GOP, but the GOP left me. What the hell kind of political party requires for its politicians to be approved by radio talk-show hosts and televangelists to even have a hope of getting elected?

Tell you what - if it was your father-in-law over Iwo, then you probably remember Eisenhower very well indeed. Was he a "smarmy liberal"? Was he? I don't think so! But if you'll check the 1956 Republican Party platform, you'll find that with the exception of LGBTQ rights and immigration, it really wasn't so different from the Democratic Party platform for 2012! And if you'll check, even Foreign Policy magazine points out how much Obama's foreign policy was like Eisenhower's, and the Brookings Institute said much the same thing.

In other words, if you consider yourself an Eisenhower Republican, then you're not a modern Republican. But if you're in full agreement with the modern GOP, then you're not a true conservative.
 
Last edited:
Hm, let me get this straight blah ... blah ... blah ... blah ... blah ...

You know perfectly well what that post was all about, you wrote:

..Every nation on the planet is fooled, too - 'cept for 'Murica...and only the 'Murican ... the uneducated and the willfully ignorant.
Every now and then I run into some liberal who thinks they are
just ever so smart making fun of people with rural accents as
being uneducated ignorant rubes. Currently that would be you.
 
Do you understand how big the ocean is? How much water would need to be added to it in order to cause the entirety of our oceans to swell by that much?

Yes.

The biggest fear of climate change isn't just rising water levels it's what will happen to the overall climate of the earth once the polar ice caps melt entirely. The caps have a radical effect on the overall temperature of the oceans and the planet not to mention the flow of the current.

As you say, the amount of ice needed to melt to give a 1 foot sea level rise is very large. Why are you talking about all the ice melting when no science supports that idea?

Try putting a large chunk of ice in a glass of water and let it sit outside on a hot day with a thermometer in it. You'll see that so long as there is at least some ice in the water, the temperature of the water will remain close to 32 degrees farenheit, but as soon as the last piece of ice melts entirely the tempurature of the water will spike significantly in a very short period of time.

For the Ocean levels around the earth to be rising at even 1 mm/yr an incredible amount of ice has to be melting into them.

Which would be a spectacular sight each summer. Vast water flows, huge iceburgs bouncing along the fjords of Greenland.... odd that we don't see it isn't it?
 
You know perfectly well what that post was all about, you wrote:


Every now and then I run into some liberal who thinks they are
just ever so smart making fun of people with rural accents as
being uneducated ignorant rubes. Currently that would be you.

"Making fun of people with rural accents"? That's your problem, guy - you ASSUME. I grew up in the boonies, in the MS Delta, as a strong conservative. I had to attend school in the next county over. And my accent was a heck of a lot worse than anything in Wisconsin...and it comes back within less than a minute of talking with anybody from the South.

But YOU, on the other hand, ASSUMED that I was some stuck-up elitist from the Left Coast, and couldn't possibly understand what rural life is like, huh?

Next time, don't assume. Ask first.
 
"Making fun of people with rural accents"? That's your problem, guy - you ASSUME. I grew up in the boonies, in the MS Delta, as a strong conservative. I had to attend school in the next county over. And my accent was a heck of a lot worse than anything in Wisconsin...and it comes back within less than a minute of talking with anybody from the South.

But YOU, on the other hand, ASSUMED that I was some stuck-up elitist from the Left Coast, and couldn't possibly understand what rural life is like, huh?

Next time, don't assume. Ask first.

I didn't assume anything, what you wrote was:

..Every nation on the planet is fooled, too - 'cept for 'Murica...and only the 'Murican ... the uneducated and the willfully ignorant.
 
I didn't assume anything, what you wrote was:

That's called "sarcasm". Of course I'm sure you've never heard of it....

And no, I'm not ridiculing rural accents - I'm ridiculing the UNEDUCATED AND WILLFULLY IGNORANT...and if all those who spoke with rural accents were uneducated and willfully ignorant, then that would include not just me, but the entirety of my ancestry going back to at least 1870, since my direct line is all buried in the same cemetery by a Southern Baptist church out in the middle of (what used to be) cotton fields all the way back to 1870.

Like I said, you assumed. Again, you didn't ask - you looked at my writing and you assumed it meant what you wanted it to mean, instead of asking me first.
 
I think we can safely file this under Ignore.

Albert Parker (aka Alberto Boretti - what is it with deniers and pseudonyms?) and Clifford Ollier already have form for mathematical incompetence published in predatory journals. There's no particular reason to start taking them seriously now (unless, of course, you're so desperate to support your right-wing ideology that you'll believe anything).
They are also members of Principia Scientific International. A small group of reality challenged people who are so far on the fringe, that if the earth were flat, they would have fallen off the edge. eg: They reject the physics of the 'greenhouse' effect.
 
Individual doctors and plumbers have been known to behave less than perfectly too.
Should I therefore stop relying on the services of doctors and plumbers?
If I recall correctly, the papers they were referring to were shoddy and probably should have been rejected by a decent editor and proper peer-review. However they were not kept out of the IPCC report. They were still mentioned - with caveats.
 
This thread has gotten a bit off topic, but none of this changes the fact that NOAA made real (questionable) adjustment to the Aden data
from it source at PSMSL.
Aden PSMSL 3/1879 measurement 6.995 meters
Aden NOAA 3/1879 measurement 6.768 meters
Delta NOAA to source -.227 meters

Aden PSMSL 11/2010 measurement 7.110 meters
Aden NOAA 11/2010 measurement 7.329 meters
Delta NOAA to source .219 meters.

Sea level added by "adjustments", .446 meters
 
From your own article.....

"So there is nothing per se wrong with PSMSL making adjustments in order to make the different datasets align."

"In Aden, for example, the alarmists have turned a modest 1.21 mm/year rise into a 3.02 mm/year rise."

So, first, your own article has to admit that there has in fact been a rise in the sea level even if it's not as big as what's been reporting. It also fully admits that there's nothing necessarily wrong with adjusting this data they just don't seem to fully understand why. In otherwords the sea levels are definately rising, and the scientists who study them seem to think it's even worse than their initial measurements indicate even though a bunch of science illerate skeptics don't seem to understand why.

So first the sea level will rise and go down just as it always has.
the issue is when a group of scientist triple the actual rise and then project that further down the line.
The issue is when when those same group of scientists use that same faulty data that they used to create
a crisis that doesn't exist. More than that they want to increase the costs to poor and working people
to pay for their data tampering.
 
This thread has gotten a bit off topic, but none of this changes the fact that NOAA made real (questionable) adjustment to the Aden data
from it source at PSMSL.
Aden PSMSL 3/1879 measurement 6.995 meters
Aden NOAA 3/1879 measurement 6.768 meters
Delta NOAA to source -.227 meters

Aden PSMSL 11/2010 measurement 7.110 meters
Aden NOAA 11/2010 measurement 7.329 meters
Delta NOAA to source .219 meters.

Sea level added by "adjustments", .446 meters

It looks like a mistake to me. I can see no reason at all why the 1879 to 1893 data should have been shifted downwards, giving a jump in sea level of about 150mm between 1893 and 1916. This would be about 6.5 mm/year over a period when, if anything, the Earth was cooling! One would have expected the sea level to remain roughly constant over this time.

I think ****-up is far more likely than conspiracy, given that the "adjusted" data are a lot less compatible with AGW than the original data! Unless, of course, some saboteur has hacked the data to make it look as though the rising ocean is not related to human CO2 emissions! :)
 
It looks like a mistake to me. I can see no reason at all why the 1879 to 1893 data should have been shifted downwards, giving a jump in sea level of about 150mm between 1893 and 1916. This would be about 6.5 mm/year over a period when, if anything, the Earth was cooling! One would have expected the sea level to remain roughly constant over this time.

I think ****-up is far more likely than conspiracy, given that the "adjusted" data are a lot less compatible with AGW than the original data! Unless, of course, some saboteur has hacked the data to make it look as though the rising ocean is not related to human CO2 emissions! :)
It is not only that the earlier measurements were adjusted down, but that the later measurements were adjusted up.
The adjusted measurements show a much larger rate of rise than the source measurements.
 
[h=2]Rising sea-levels in the Indian Ocean due to man-made “adjustments” not CO2[/h]
PMSML stands for Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level, though there is nothing permanent about sea-level data — like all obedient climate change data, it’s subject to change fifty years later – and the adjustments are as large as the trends.
We’ve seen this pattern in so many places. Now Cliff Ollier and Albert Parker have shown it in the Indian Ocean looking at Aden in Yemen, and Mumbai in India (and other places, and other data). Kenneth Richard at No Tricks Zone goes through it at length. James Delingpole calls it TideGate. The New York Times says nothing (just like last time).
Parker and Ollier conclude that at Mumbai, apparently the sea levels were “perfectly stable over the 20th century”. At Aden, sea levels trends are rising at a pitifully small quarter of a millimeter a year during the twentieth century. (And that’s their upper estimate). The lower estimate is minus five hundreths of a millimeter a year. Looking at other sites as well they estimate a rise of …”about zero mm/year” in the last five decades. zero.
This, they say, agrees with other things like… coastal morphology, stratigraphy, radiocarbon dating, archaeological remains, and historical documentation. (But not so much with climate models). Across the world there are scores of scientists all looking at everyone else’s adjusted data and saying to themselves “my raw data doesn’t look right”.
Tide Gauge Hut in Aden | Photo IOC Gloss
[h=3]Suspicious adjustments?[/h]Graph (a) below shows the segments of raw data from Mumbai tide gauges collected from 1878 – 2011. There is a breakpoint change in 1936 with a 677mm drop. But the red series ends in December, and the green series starts the following month in January. (We wish there was an overlap, but at least there is no gap). The red line trend goes slightly up, the green line goes slightly down. But add them together and thanks to the magic of unexplained modern adjustments, look at Graph (b)! The effect of CO2 is revealed!
Amazing what scientists can find these days. Especially ‘mazing how the ground under these gauges seems to be rising so that it hides the effects of climate change. A conspiracy, I tell you.
Fig. 2 Mumbai tide gauge — Monthly average mean sea levels. a) raw data. (PSMSL 2017f). b) Revised local reference (RLR, adjusted) data. (PSMSL 2017g)
Unlike the mainstream team Beenstock et al took the less conspiratorial approach and assumed that the land would be randomly subsiding and rising. Satellites confirmed that the placement of gauges was fairly random with respect to changing sea levels. Instead of trying to correct for that at each station individually, they just averaged the lot. Beenstock estimated the trend in sea levels across a thousand gauges was just over one millimeter a year.
In Mumbai the PMSML team convert a small negative trend to a significant positive one:
Keep reading →




 

Will Advances in Groundwater Science Force a Paradigm Shift in Sea Level Rise Attribution?

Guest essay by Jim Steele Director emeritus Sierra Nevada Field Campus, San Francisco State University and author of Landscapes & Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism In a 2002 paper, what is frequently referred to as “Munk’s enigma”, Scripps Institution of Oceanography’s senior researcher bemoaned the fact researchers could not fully account for…
Continue reading →

. . . Improved observational data suggest during more frequent La Nina years a greater proportion of precipitation falls on the land globally and when routed through more slowly discharging aquifers, sea level rise decelerates. During periods of more frequent El Niños, more rain falls back onto the oceans, and sea level rise accelerates. In contrast to La Nina induced shallow-aquifer effects, deep aquifers have been filled with meltwater from the last Ice Age, and that water is slowly and steadily seeping back into the oceans today. . . .

 
Back
Top Bottom