NASA – Doubling Sea Level Rise By Data Tampering

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.


 1983: 1983_Hansen_etal_2.pdf  2016 :Sea Level

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

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

211 Responses to NASA – Doubling Sea Level Rise By Data Tampering

  1. Tom Davidson says:

    The only exceptions to the NASA sea level rise trends are stations with actual working tide gauges.

    • gardetnstateed says:

      If we use that argument, then certainly you would understand “skeptics” also questioning the baseline data, right? I mean if there were no stations with actual working tide gauges, how do we know what the starting point was? Can’t have it both ways.

      • Fred says:

        In this environment of being concerned with minute changes and exacting measurement of sea level, skeptics should also be questioning whether the seabed elevation is not changing (up or down) or if land or continents remain at a dependable constant. The elevation of the very land beneath the tide gauges are obviously considered an inalterable standard in these assertions all the while the Earth’s crust floats on a sea of undulating magma.

        • lysol motorola says:

          Go read my treatise on this point at

          It is found under The Amount Don’t COunt. Scroll down.

        • Derek Esco says:

          too many variables are ignored by the rebranded “climate change” push…
          There are so many unknowns… it’s simply illogical to use less than 100 years of incomplete data out of roughly 4.5 billion and claim the theory is fact…

          • Ian says:

            brilliant comment, glad to see there are people who see it logically. I doubt there can be even 60 years of accurate global data.

        • jay says:

          Isostatic Rebound, as well. The formerly glaciated areas of continents are still rebounding upwards from the last ice age.

        • Smokey says:


          Tide gauges are the only reliable metric. With enough of them around the planet averaged, the true sea level change can be accurately measured.

          Yes, there is subsidence, and there is uplifting. But the land is not uplifting everywhere. That’s impossible (the planet would be growing larger if that happened). And the land is not subsiding everywhere, either. That is also impossible; the planet would be shrinking.

          So enough tide gauges around the planet would tell the true story — and the cost would only be a tiny fraction of the $1 billion+ wasted every year to “study climate change”.

          But they won’t put in more tide gauges. Why? Because they don’t want the truth. They’ve done quite well for themselves by scaring the public with their “carbon” and “dangerous man-made global warming” alarmism. Being truthful would undermine those baseless scares.

          Sea levels are no different from natural global warming: there is nothing either unprecedented or unusual happening with either of them. Everything being observed now has happened in the past, repeatedly, and to a much greater degree — and before human CO2 emissions were a factor.

        • Political Hostage says:

          They still believe in plate tectonics as well, instead of the more favorable a day more likely expanding Earth theory.

      • Granny Grunch says:

        250 years ago, the beach was 1/10 of a mile East of Palm Beach. Oh my…it is the End of Life As We Know it.

      • cb750 says:

        Then it would be a bit silly to base any legislation on faulty data or to make claims of sea level rises on faulty data

      • Prelusive says:

        “gardetnstateed”…. as we all know, the ocean swells and waves rush to shore…. Looks like NASA started their measurements at the bottom of the “swell” and then took the final measurements at high-tide with the highest swells with a jagged gradient calculated in between…. : /

      • Jim Greaves says:

        Remember what Fukushima tsunami QUAKE did to the land at sea edge. Remember what the Indonesian tsunami did to the same thing in the islands impacted. The earth’s crust is NOT in a constantly “same” place vis-a-vis water levels – not over-all, nor in any particular location. “THEY” told us back in the 80’s that the Chesapeake Bay would be 3 FEET higher by 2000. It has hardly moved a few centimeters. And we are supposed to “trust” NASA?!

    • burp says:


    • Latitude says:

      Rising carbon dioxide is making the Earth GREENER: Extra plant growth caused by greenhouse gases could cover the USA twice

      Scientists used satellite data over the past 33 years to measure leaf cover
      Planet has got greener as plants have flourished in rising carbon dioxide
      Additional plant growth is equivalent to covering the US twice in greenery
      Rising carbon dioxide is responsible for 70 per cent of the extra greening

      ….it’s not all bad news :)

      • Ed says:

        Global warming scientists have experienced 235% extra greening from taxpayer funded studies in the same period. Hence, taxpayer funded studies cause global warming so lets eliminate taxpayer funding of global warming studies. Res ipsa loquitur.

      • tracker says:

        And that is with a rise in CO2 of a mere 0.017%

      • Michael says:

        Ok, so with the amount of tillabe land not being utilized due to the expansion of corporate farming, would this not account for the increase in plant growth? Private farming dropped way off since the 70s. Also, what happened to all that deforestation of the rain forests? Was that not also the environmental bell weather for global shortage of carbon dioxide? All these inconvenient truths.

      • Kenneth Jones says:

        But we are all going to starve even with longer growing seasons and all of this fertilizer (CO2) in the atmosphere.

      • David A says:

        “….it’s not all bad news ?”
        If I may, the benefits of CO2 are the ONLY news, the rest is pure propaganda.

      • R2Dtoo says:

        It is all bad! The plants are taking over the earth. They will grow fast and invade our farms, pastures and cities. The next crisis is “treemageddon”.

    • Arik says:

      NASA is the softer side of lying government agencies, like Sears.

    • steve johnson says:

      The magnitude of global sea level vertical change, 5-10 inches per 50 years is the same as would be expected as a result of local vertical uplift due to plate tectonics. I would show a graph but cannot. I can show a smaller but similar driving force acting on local elevations.

      Sadly, the IPCC does not seem to include plate tectonics as a driving force for anything. I could be wrong here, but I am inclined to believe Sea Floor Spreading controls sea levels as well as or better than other forcing mechanisms.

      For example, “changes in spreading rates” is an accepted explanatory mechanism cited in large scale stratigraphic analysis to explain global subaerial emergences and submergences such as the Ordovician as a whole etc. Mid ocean ridges likely control modern Global Eustatic Sea Elevations as well. Basin sinking and subduction would be uncontrolled local effects that influence historical tide gage data. Historically, mean sea level is mean sea level…tide gages were and probably still are tied into land via plane surveys but the datum remains the sea…not some stable continental benchmark datum point of reference. Satellite data is a new kind of data…it is likely closed internally by laser ranging so I would expect much going back and forth in the scientific literature.

      The careful observer will note that even IPCC maps show world wide change in arctic sea levels. Such changes are likely thermal. Graphs of Global Eustatic Sea Level likely show a statistical artifact caused by adding in purely local changes such as Arctic Sea elevation. The Arctic sea level is likely a pure thermal effect and amounts to inches of local elevation increase for the Arctic mean sea level.

      Recent reports indicate thermal effects, not melting of ice likely controls graphs of Global Eustatic Mean Sea Level (see below). Global elevation changes of only 5-10 inches per 50 years appear statistically significant but it is difficult to attribute 3-8 inches of non-arctic elevation increase to atmospheric heat. It is my assertion that the heat held in the atmosphere is small compared to the world wide sea. Breaking out the satellite leveling data and plotting it all on a world map shows the Arctic is indeed a large, continuous and significant “high”. The rest of the worlds oceans show discontinuous changes (some highs and some lows). The net combined vertical departure that seems “balanced” and appears driven by historical global circulatory patterns. Contributions from heating at mid ocean ridge is not yet visible. Review IPCC 2007 charts listed

      There is no obvious reason to argue “settled science”…when driving forces such as global tectonics do not show up on the balance sheet.

    • old white guy says:

      as someone who was born and raised on the ast coast I can definitely say without pause, there has been no raise in the sea level since the 1940’s

    • Einstein was a dunce says:

      NASA has always been an organization for public deception, since it’s founding. There is zero measurable curve on the earth’s surface. You can test that statement today simply by observing distant objects that should be well below the earth’s alleged curve. I’ve seen the Statue of Liberty through binoculars from the beach on the Jersey shore, 60 miles away. There should be 2400′ of ball-curve over that distance, I could observe the entire statue and it’s base, not just the torch. You can also just look up the visibility of lighthouses; all the distances listed are well below “the curve” given the structures height.

      Ever seen the UN flag?

    • Dave Burton says:

      That’s just about true, Tom.

      Harvard Prof. Jerry Mitrovica provides a nice illustration. (I don’t generally like picking on people behind their backs, but he won’t answer my email, so here goes.)

      This is a slide from one of his lectures; I added the blinking circle:

      Note that he says the global average rate of sea-level rise since 1930 is 2.3 mm/yr.

      Here’s another slide from the same lecture. He selected what he considered to be the 23 very best (“gold standard”) long-term tide gauges in the world, and plotted their rates of sea-level rise; I added the blinking blue line:

      Do you see it? It’s sort of a reverse Lake Woebegone effect: all the tide gauges are below average.

      Here’s a more detailed critique

      Aside: Tony, please check your email box!

  2. Walt says:

    REAL scientists would embrace debate to get to a TRUE consensus. Attempts to stifle debate about warming only serve to prove they are frauds.

    • bpj says:

      There is no “consensus” in science, it is proven or it is not. The scientific consensus in the first half of the 20th century was that blacks were inferior to whites, to wit eugenics and the advent of Planned Parenthood. The same feeling of “consensus” is taking your tax money and welfareizing it and giving it to unemployable PHD candidates in the name of SETI (Search for extraterrestrial intelligence), government is all a joke!

      • Mikkel says:

        I always thought the scientific method was “disproved” vs. “not yet disproved” (mathematics notwithstanding).

        • Hawking the stage prop says:

          Mathematics is a modeling tool. Data can always be made to fit so that the equal sign is balanced. But if math and reality don’t mirror each other 100%, which is correct?

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          I always thought the scientific method was “disproved” vs. “not yet disproved …”

          That’s where you went wrong, Mikkel. You are talking about the obsolete concept of bourgeois science.

          We are talking about a new progressive quality here, far from the reactionary muck you are stuck in. We are talking about the ability of socialist science to influence the processes of nature by ”active interference”.

          And we sincerely hope you are not questioning Party discipline. There are consequences to such foolishness.

          Go back and study. Ask comrade politruk for materials and report back to us.


          ”Science in these conditions provided by socialist society assumes a particular power which distinguishes it in quality from bourgeois science. This is its greater activity, its greater tendency towards active interference in and changing of, those processes of nature which in the conditions of bourgeois society remain elemental and unrestrained.”

          Marxism and Natural Sciences, Y.M. Uranovsky, 2011
          Source: N. I. Bukharin and others, Marxism and Modern Thought, George Routledge & Sons, 1935


          ”Today party members, even the highest placed—or the lowest placed and youngest, which is perhaps even more important—must give full obedience or take the consequences.”

          Stalinism’s Mark is Party Discipline, Walter Duranty, The New York Times, 1931

        • Jason says:

          Science, or rather the scientific method isn’t about disproving. It’s about demonstrating and furthering understanding. Newton’s laws don’t work with tiny particles. They haven’t been “disproven”, though. On the contrary, we use them in the macro world all the time even though we know they are incomplete in their understanding of all of the various forces at play. We use them where they apply. Science is about first finding a theory and then finding (through controlled experimentation) the areas where that theory doesn’t work. Then the theory is refined or new theories are formed to fill in the gaps. The problem with trying to figure out the climate change issue and figure out what the driving forces are is that there is no real way to perform controlled experiments, having no small scale physical model to work with. This isn’t science, is statistical analysis that’s being called science. Statistical analysis is a good form of gathering observations to use in order to form a preliminary hypothesis and design experiments to demonstrate and further explore that hypothesis so that it may become theory, but it is only one of a large number of told that must be used to actually use science.

          • juan says:

            Jason, excellent comment. Unfortunately the terminally dumb’ d down semi-illiterate masses simply do not have the skills to comprehend your logic. The libs have won, we are now a nation of govt dependent trolling idiots.

          • steve johnson says:

            All scientific theories must be falsifiable, otherwise, it is merely music.

      • Frank Slade says:

        You’re confusing the scientific consensus with the progressive consensus (political) which is not the same thing.

        • It was once the “scientific” consensus that the earth was the center of the universe. That came, not from the Catholic Church, but from the Greek philosophers. It was also once the “scientific” consensus a hundred years ago that the scablands were formed by eons of slow geologic processes when, in fact, they were formed by several catastrophic floods.

          • Charles Dean says:

            Read Immanuel Velakovsky (Earth in Upheaval). 1950’s genius who had it right. He was blackballed by academia who believed in slow geologic change. Einstein believed him, however. You’ll see how closed minded science can be. Great read!

          • JohnK says:

            But you’re making the opposite side of the argument. That Earth-Centric universe was what scientists believed UNTIL better scientists proved them wrong.

            Likewise, how many doctors refused to wash their hands because the science they had learned didn’t recognize what Pasteur learned.

            You can’t use obvious mistakes of the past to prove that all scientists are wrong, when it was the scientists who proved themselves wrong.

            That’s what makes science MORE RIGHT than many politicians and people with agendas.

            Scientists WANT to be proved wrong, and the longer they are not proved wrong, the harder they work to prove themselves right.

            Scientists publish their results in publications that are dedicated to proving anyone wrong that can be proved wrong.

            But people with their agendas do not want to be proved wrong, so they publish in YES-WE-ARE-RIGHT-AND-EVERYONE-ELSE-IS-WRONG journals, and yell about how scientists must be wrong because they have been wrong in the past.

            Science gave us the computers that you are using right now, and improvements will continue to be made.

            If you want to abandon all the progress that scientists have given us, feel free to go back to your horse and buggy.

            OOPS. the buggy has wheels. That’s science.

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            JohnK says:

            “If you want to abandon all the progress that scientists have given us, feel free to go back to your horse and buggy.

            OOPS. the buggy has wheels. That’s science.”

            Nice strawman you built there, John. Was it hard to knock it down?

            Tell me, what progress did these climate “scientists” give us with their data fraud? You do know that cars, bridges or pharmaceuticals fail and kill people when fraudulent and fabricated data is used, don’t you?

            Your comment shows how hard it is to defend the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis and the methods of the promoters without making a fool of yourself.

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            “Scientists WANT to be proved wrong, and the longer they are not proved wrong, the harder they work to prove themselves right.”

            -JohnK, The Science Guy

            “Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it? ”

            -Dr. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit and Professor in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia
            (in response to Warwick Hughes)

            It looks like they don’t want to be proved wrong. They work hard to prevent others from looking at their data.

            Houston, we have a problem. Someone fudged the data on the rocket booster O-rings.

          • Richard says:

            O-rings my butt. Challenger was a hoax to draw national attention (and $$$$$$$) towards the space program. No one died. They all just went about normal lives, not even changing their names in most cases. It’s not “news” unless the MSM reports it.

          • tonyheller says:

            Tin foil alert …

          • Dave Burton says:

            Here you go, Richard:

            (Aside: Tony, please check your email!)

        • D.C.-Dionysus says:

          Amen Frank!! Right on the money there

        • Political Hostage says:

          Consensus is not fact. A provable and repeatable scientific conclusion is though.

      • Dura_Ace says:

        dont forget to take your lithium

      • eric holder says:

        and science is never “settled”

        • Chester says:

          JohnK “Scientists WANT to be proved wrong, and the longer they are not proved wrong, the harder they work to prove themselves right.”

          Not AGW “scientists”. it’s known they have faked and twisted raw data to support their narrative, they strive to suppress exposure of their failures and lies, they have refused to peer review opposing views and data, they want to sue or sic the government on other scientists by using the RICO laws against those who disagree.

          As climate scientists, they are nothing but quacks and frauds.

          • Richard says:

            It can’t just be climate data fraud. If there’s discoverable fraud in one corner of science, it’s rampant through out the entire discipline.

      • Derek Esco says:

        The only true fact in science is, nothing is absolutely fixed as fact.

    • tracker says:

      Any time there is a concensus in science………………..someone’s getting too lazy to check the work.

    • Hugh K says:

      But they (the team) don’t have to embrace debate. The AGW scam isn’t about science. It’s about establishing group-think. The team has been indoctrinating our youth for decades so that now (pop-culturally speaking) those youth have grown up believing the AGW scam is reality. The same way the wacky far left have been changing (destroying?) our culture in all other areas.
      Ask any young climate crusader who climate fraudster Peter Gleick is and they don’t have a clue.

  3. Richard Tuck says:

    Only a “religion” can happily ignore data tampering.

  4. Charles says:

    NASA isn’t just fabricating climate data. It was founded by Nazis, Freemasons, and occultists; they lie about everything.

    • Cletus says:

      Jack Parsons, Aleister Crowley, and L. Ron Hubbard were all hommies, too.
      C. Fred Kleinknecht, NASA director, was promoted to Sovereign Grand Commander of the Scottish Rite Freemasonry after faking the Apollo missions.

    • Bill Powell says:

      Look folks, look at the ears and the eyebrows. But the ears especially prove most of these photos are actually someone else. Just because one runs a facial recognition search on internet photos, doesn’t mean they’ve found a genuine match. Many people have very familiar features and I’m just tired of seeing these kinds of comparisons crop up.

    • Dave Burton says:

      Wow. We have Richard (“Challenger catastrophe was a hoax”), E.w.a.d. (“Earth is flat”), Charles (“all NASA flights are hoaxes”), and Doug Cotton (“warmer objects can’t absorb photons from colder objects, because thermodynamics”), all in the same thread. Is there some sort of crackpot convention going on? Is the Trump Train in town?

  5. Michael Stone says:

    Golly Bullwinkle…Didn’t see that one coming did we!!!

  6. Gary Thompson says:

    is there no honesty in our government anymore?

  7. Steve M. says:

    USA should mothball NASA programs and redirect most of NASA budget to fight climate change. Since they are such gloom and doom proponents of Global Warming, I am sure they won’t mind.

    • j muns says:

      That’s exactly what modern science is…a belief system.


  8. Frank Aaron says:

    You cannot measure ocean levels using a tide gauge. The tectonic plate that the gauge sits on is also rising or lowering. Currently there is no way to measure why the apparent ocean levels change.

  9. In their “adjustment” of their 1880-1999 data set which they titled “Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomaly (C),” they increased the alleged anomalies for all but six years from 1880 to 1910, thus hiding a downward trend during that period. Then they reduced the alleged anomalies for EVERY year from 1911 to 1964, thus hiding a marked temperature peak during that period. Then they increased the alleged anomalies for all but one year from 1965 to 1999, that last year in the data set as published in the year 2000.

    The net result of these “adjustments” was the changing of an up and down trending historical record to a false narrative of temperatures that were essentially stable from 1880 to 1930, then temperatures continually rising at a gradually increasing rate from 1930 to the present. And yes, I have both data sets on my computer, and backed up where they will not be able to find it to destroy the records.

    And yes, you are right. This is not error it is pure, boldfaced, fraud.

  10. Dave72 says:

    NASA has people writing comic books on global warming aimed at grade school kids. What a waste.

    • Lila says:

      Not a waste for them at all … if the next generation enters adulthood with a life-long belief, then there is no need for hiding truth or embellishing the lies; it will all be accepted as gospel (as any new-age religion is). They can feel so good about themselves for having saved the world (as any superhero does) even if they only saved it from cartoon danger !!

  11. Randy C. says:

    The decay of personal character and integrity is sweeping through the gubmit funded scientific community.

    • StoicAbSpartan says:

      Ya get what ya pay for. I used to tell my boss, “You tell me the numbers you want and I will get them for you.”, for GC/MS and ICP/MS parts per billion to parts per trillion detection limits for both metals and organics. Of course he would have fired me if I would have ever fudged and I would have quit had he ever asked me to.

  12. josetoyou says:

    Corruption is rampant under this administration…cooking the books is the norm.

  13. Bob Steele says:

    What is the National Aeronautics And Space Administration doing worrying with Gore-bal Warming on the ground they are supposed to be rocketing away from?

  14. Ice Star says:

    The New Science

    If the actual data doesn’t match your hypothesis…

    Create your own data!!!!!

  15. Michael Stone says:

    NASA….Never A Straight Answer

  16. Chalker Brown says:

    Show me where in the world there is actual evidence of sea level rise. Many (most?) low elevation island chains should be underwater, at least at high tide, with people living in houses on stilts.

    I live in St. Augustine, FL, and we have actually been gaining beach and our sand dunes are getting higher every year. The low tide mark today is close to 100 feet farther from the dunes than it was a year ago.

    If sea level rise is for real, just exactly where is the empirical evidence?

  17. carl mann says:

    All the models agree…the observed data is wrong

  18. ramu says:

    How can they claim a 3mm rise when the accuracy is 3cm? Is that + or -? They don’t say.
    Before satellites how did they make accurate measurements? Why did they make any measurement?
    As to temperature rise, how can you measure .01 degree C with an RTD that has an accuracy of + or – 0.35 degree C? Anyone have 2 sensors ? How close are they?


      I often had to deal with engineers chasing a trend line in what was actually a noise background. Once that was accepted, the trends disappeared. I suspect most of climate change, other than what is actually fraud and number manipulation is actually noise, no data or perceptible changes actually there.

  19. Lumpy says:

    That would get in the way of NASA’s real mission–to honor the contributions Islam has made to the space program…

  20. Bruce Bosworth says:

    The evidence for a massive multinational government fraud mislabeled “climate change” keeps getting stronger and stronger. Yet the brown nosing drones of the “news”, entertainment and political businesses continues to ignore reality because their lust for power over the peasants won’t be so easily sated if they were to be honest, ethical and act with integrity for a change.

  21. John Ragozzino says:

    Why does a space organization pretend to be proficient in earth sciences?
    What if the IRS was found to be working on a Zika cure? Would you believe a
    word they had to say?

    • Ben says:

      NASA’s name brand is used to carry climate propaganda message. NASA is said to be the epitome of science. NASA has the voice, it has the authority, it is said to have credibility….and it has advanced technology in space. That is why NASA is used.

  22. Jonathan Goodman says:

    The references do not suggest fraud. Both say that sea level rise is hard to estimate because beaches move a lot. It’s not clear from the references exactly what data is being used, how beach movement is taken into account, and what is being plotted (sea level where, with what corrections, … ?).

  23. suzy000 says:

    Look…all I know is that Guam DID NOT tip over like the Democrats predicted it would so no wonder they are tampering with other data to make sure they influence the masses after such an embarrassing eight years when the seas have not swallowed up any islands or coastlines yet.

  24. stargirl says:

    if sea levels are actually rising, why isn’t the price of waterfront property declining?

  25. Pingback: NASA Data Tampering doubles sea level rise.

  26. Diabolicus Rex says:

    In the end, so what. Anatomically modern humans have adapted to changing circumstances for 200,000 years. A little shakeup every now and then ain’t a bad thing, overall. As always, the strong (or lucky) will survive. One thing’s certain, currently pathetic space efforts, in spite of our proven ability, will look kinda stupid to cosmic aliens after Earth gets plastered by another big asteroid.

  27. Apeon LastnmUnk says:

    Sounds like the data has been WATER BOARDED!

  28. jeff says:

    There’s lies, damned lies, and statistics.

    Figures lie and liars figure!

  29. Tom Ray says:

    It is part of a larger Socialist plot to take over our lives by “frightening us” into electing Socialist and authoritarian, anti-Capitalist Leaders. Commies and Socialists have long used such tampering tactics and trickery to get what they want—They give no whit about the environment, which is just fine anyway.–they only want power and promise any real Scientists who support them a cushy job in their coming “paradise”.

  30. Ozzone Layyer says:

    Further proof that Obama’s agenda is to force climate control on everyone and he will use any government agency to push it and even lie about the data. Just like they are doing now.

  31. Jay Clarke says:

    I wonder what the data would look like if you gave grants to show sae levels falling and global cooling???????

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      You don’t really think they would?

      These are my principles. If you don’t like them I have others.

      -Groucho Marx

  32. Jtom says:

    The only useful measure of sea level is the net change between the water and the land. That is, it matters not a whit if sea level rises 3 cm per year, and locally the land is rising 3 cm per year; there is no change as far as the local environment is concerned.

    The impact of any sea level change can only be measured by its local effect . Until someone can show significant areas where the rising oceans are actually threatening local inhabitants (and not areas where the land is sinking), then any ‘change’ in sea level is simply an anomaly that can and should be dismissed.

    From what I have read, the projected changes are so gradual that one will only be able to see a change when comparing present coastlines to historical maps of the same area. Those who portend any human catastrophe completely ignore that humans are intelligent, adaptable beings who will merely shift their locations slowly over time to accommodate changing coastlines, or take the necessary engineering steps to protect their own locale.

    I heard one political pundit on TV project an absurd number of deaths to sea level rise (400,000?). I could just imagine generations of families living in the same abode as the ocean creeps higher and higher over decades, until a future generation finally drowns. Totally bizarre thinking, and emblematic of the thinking of those promoting this (non) issue.

  33. Dan Glesener says:

    Like drug addicts willing to lie, cheat, steal and prostitute themselves for their next fix; a funding-dependent scientific community uses false crises and bullying tactics to raise funds.

  34. National decline says:

    Global cooling, global warming and climate change are terms that the constitution strictly prohibited. These are all a form of a state formed religion. Liberals have banned God from nearly every institution and replaced it with the worship of the earth. Many of the disciples of this religion have openly stated that humans are virus or parasite destroying their idol, the earth. And called for the culling of the human heard to limit the damage of the earth. Funny how these liberals are always calling for others to be removed from the earth, because if they really believed their own propaganda, they should have committed suicide. Their real goal is to gain control of all the resources so they can fly around in their private jets and ride in separate limousines while the rest of the serf class (you and I, the commoners) will be left to toil tilling the soil with an ox and plow.
    This is why liberals continue to preach the climate change myth, and as with all liberals the ends justify the means so lying, falsifying climate reports and records is a necessity to gain control ALL of natural resources because they think they know how to use them better than the serf class. And we should be greatful that we weren’t aborted as a baby. And we must ignore the man behind the curtain and to NEVER bring up their past prophecies that did NOT come true… does anyone remember when Al Gore, the climate whore, say when the oceans were to rise up and destroy coastal cities in his movie “An Inconvenient Truth (or LIE)”??
    It’s time to end their religion and the mandatory tithes to their earthen alter.

  35. Commentor No. 99034 says:

    I wonder if any of these NASA scientists are going to put their money where their mouth is and start selling their beach front properties?

    • Smilin' Jon says:

      This flap about sea level brings to mind the horrifying and supremely dangerous “hole in the ozone layer”. For those not scientifically conversant: Ozone is formed when high energy (via particle, ray, wave, etc.) strikes an oxygen (O2) electron, which causes it to “fly away” and leaves the O2 “hungry”. These “hungry” molecules tend to group together, creating O3, O4, etc., i.e. “ozone”. These quickly find free electrons OR attach to “oxidizable” molecules, and the “ozone” is no longer present. It’s a continuous process in our upper atmosphere and involves a LOT of molecules OTHER than O2…but, only so long as there is a continuing supply of radiation from the sun. So, at NIGHT or under conditions replicating NIGHT, i.e. winter at either POLE…”ozone” is NOT produced, but continues to disappear. This is how and why there are “holes in the ozone layer”. It is nothing NEW…well, at least not since there has been sunlight. BUT, never mind these “FACTS” Mr. NASA…”holes” MUST be the result of automobiles burning fossil fuels! Oh…and the “result” of this loss of “ozone” will be that we’ll ALL die of SKIN CANCER! Don’t ya just LOVE the version of “science” that is the product of “consensus”????

  36. Jeff says:

    Let’s pump more money into the space program so we can bring dignity back to the NASA name. Climate fraud has brought shame to this once proud organization.

  37. This flap about sea level brings to mind the horrifying and supremely dangerous “hole in the ozone layer”. For those not scientifically conversant: Ozone is formed when high energy (via particle, ray, wave, etc.) strikes an oxygen (O2) electron, which causes it to “fly away” and leaves the O2 “hungry”. These “hungry” molecules tend to group together, creating O3, O4, etc., i.e. “ozone”. These quickly find free electrons OR attach to “oxidizable” molecules, and the “ozone” is no longer present. It’s a continuous process in our upper atmosphere and involves a LOT of molecules OTHER than O2…but, only so long as there is a continuing supply of radiation from the sun. So, at NIGHT or under conditions replicating NIGHT, i.e. winter at either POLE…”ozone” is NOT produced, but continues to disappear. This is how and why there are “holes in the ozone layer”. It is nothing NEW…well, at least not since there has been sunlight. BUT, never mind these “FACTS” Mr. NASA…”holes” MUST be the result of automobiles burning fossil fuels! Oh…and the “result” of this loss of “ozone” will be that we’ll ALL die of SKIN CANCER! Don’t ya just LOVE the version of “science” that is the product of “consensus”????

    • Moi says:

      This flap about sea level brings to mind the horrifying and supremely dangerous “hole in the ozone layer”. For those not scientifically conversant: Ozone is formed when high energy (via particle, ray, wave, etc.) strikes an oxygen (O2) electron, which causes it to “fly away” and leaves the O2 “hungry”. These “hungry” molecules tend to group together, creating O3, O4, etc., i.e. “ozone”. These quickly find free electrons OR attach to “oxidizable” molecules, and the “ozone” is no longer present. It’s a continuous process in our upper atmosphere and involves a LOT of molecules OTHER than O2…but, only so long as there is a continuing supply of radiation from the sun. So, at NIGHT or under conditions replicating NIGHT, i.e. winter at either POLE…”ozone” is NOT produced, but continues to disappear. This is how and why there are “holes in the ozone layer”. It is nothing NEW…well, at least not since there has been sunlight. BUT, never mind these “FACTS” Mr. NASA…”holes” MUST be the result of automobiles burning fossil fuels! Oh…and the “result” of this loss of “ozone” will be that we’ll ALL die of SKIN CANCER! Don’t ya just LOVE the version of “science” that is the product of “consensus”????

  38. Sam Spade says:

    NASA must be DEMOCRAT operation

  39. CO2isLife says:

    How does atmospheric CO2 warm the oceans? CO2 absorbs IR between 13 and 18µ. Those wavelengths don’t penetrate or warm water. Visible light warms the oceans. Warming oceans works to debunk the AGW theory.

    • Dave Burton says:


      1. Any photon which is absorbed by the ocean will warm it, wither IR or visible.

      2. Atmospheric GHGs absorb IR in the atmosphere. That IR mostly comes from the surface (and other GHG molecules in the atmosphere), including the oceans. If that IR is absorbed by the atmosphere, rather than escaping to space, it warms the air, which warms the oceans.

      Note that the Earth emits much more IR and microwave energy than it absorbs. (Conversely, it absorbs much more visible and shorter electromagnetic energy that it emits.)

      Additional CO2 has only a small warming effect, because there’s so much CO2 already in the atmosphere that the atmosphere is already almost completely opaque to the wavelengths which CO2 most strongly absorbs. It is mainly at the fringes of the absorption bands where additional CO2 has a significant effect.

  40. baborn says:

    Wasn’t one of The Kenyan’s first acts as president to change NASA’s primary goal to study global temperatures and produce research that will support green energy initiatives and also to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science … and math and engineering.

    NASA has been turned into another Obama joke, its credibility has been squandered.

  41. Randy C. says:

    NASA is now a Muslim outreach program, after all.

  42. Dan the man says:

    Any set of data points can be perfectly explained if one creates an equation of sufficient variables and exponents. The key question is if the equation has predictive power. If it does not, it’s false. Every year the climate change equation is modified, and it fails to predict. It gets embarrassing, so now they actually change the prior data. And inconvenient truth is eliminated

  43. slktuc says:

    It’s interesting how Facebook, Google and other “Climate Change” Companies are building in areas that are going to be under water per Climate Change Scientist.
    How come these Companies with so many smart people are that dumb????
    In addition how come the Cities are issuing permits for areas that the Scientist say will be under water in the future?????????? Hmmmmmmmmm.

  44. Htos1 says:

    Sorry to have to break it off up inside of ya’ like this:
    I’ve lived in Fernandina Florida more than 40 years, on the beach. 0% sea level rise. Sure, there’s erosion from nor’easters, but that’s all.
    Life is hard, MUCH harder if you’re led around by your nose ring, via politicians with their ripoffs, payoffs, and “things”, nobody saw.

    This is far more believable:

  45. Carl says:

    And to think I’ve been wrong all these years, blaming high-tide for the rising seas.

  46. Jason Calley says:

    How dangerous is CO2? I’ll tell ya.

    The “C” stands for “Cthullu”.

    Yep. That’s how dangerous it is… :)

  47. Jack Coyote says:

    Is this the same NASA that launched the Challenger Shuttle in 1986 when the temperature’s were below freezing, and their own engineers warned that the O rings could fail at those temperatures?

  48. lysol motorola says:

    This is settled. Even if the ice at the South Pole melts, and the ice on Greenland melt, there will be no appreciable change in the shoreline. Anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong.
    Here is why.

    Water has volume. That is what has certain groups so upset. The argument that water will take up more room than the ice it came from has already been debunked. But lets take the ice that is not floating. See. No tricks.
    If ice that is not floating melts, water will run into the oceans. Because it is a fluid, the extra water will be distributed more or less evenly over the 70 percent of the earth’s surface that is not land.

    Still with me?
    Water also has mass. And that is what the alarmists are missing. Or ignoring.
    Water has a mass of one gram per cubic centimeter. That does not sound like much, does it. But consider this. A liter of water is one thousand times heavier. We are now talking about a KILOGRAM!!! Think of it. That is more than two pounds.
    The elegant part of this analysis is that it does not matter how much, or little, ice melts and runs into the sea. Three things happen in ALL CASES.
    First, the land under the ice starts to rise. Parts of Canada and the USA are still rising from when the last glaciers left. NEWS ITEMWho knows how long, and how high, they will rise. Same thing with Greenland if its ice melts. It will come popping right up out of the mantle like a cork. Likewise Antarctica. Only more so because – – more ice.
    Second. The mass (for those of you unschooled in these things, just think weight. It means pretty much the same thing in this context.) of the oceans will go up.
    Now, you are saying, we got him!!!
    WRONG. For item number Three reveals all.
    The third thing that will happen is that the bottom of the oceans will be pushed back down into the molten mantle. It will be pushed with a force EXACTLY proportionate to the MASS of NEW WATER. That is why “the amount don’t count.” And not only will the basaltic ocean pans be pushed down, because the planet is not going to get smaller, something has to give. And here is where the most stunning realization comes in. The continents, and continental shelves, are going to be pushed up. Just like puss from a squeezed boil.
    So. No change in the shore line. We might even get more land, instead of less. You can run the numbers if you want. I did. This is irrefutable. For example, the most important number is the difference between the specific gravity (that means density for those of you who slept during science class) of granite -2.75 or 2.8 because it is a felsic rock – and water. The specific gravity of water is 1. Of course this is true only at 4 degrees C. So, we have water, which is only one third as specific as granite, added to the ocean over the basalt. But because the oceans cover about 73% of the surface of the earth, to an average depth of 12,200 feet, the water will push down harder than the continents will by a ratio of approximately 7 to 3. It does my faith in GAIA good to see how close this ratio comes to balancing out the specific gravity difference between the water and the granite.
    BUT NOT QUITE. The result, as you may by now really believe, is that the ocean floors will go down and the continents will go up. AND “The amount Don’t Count!”
    It is already happening. The Solomon Islands are now 15 feet higher above sea level than they were two months ago. They had an earthquake. REEF EXPOSED

    Well, no one said it would all happen quietly in the middle of your nap, did they??? It is just the beginning.

    • Dave Burton says:

      “lysol motorola” (where do people come up with these handles?), the semi-liquid magma which makes up much of the Earth’s upper mantle, upon which the Earth’s crust floats, is much more viscous than the water in the oceans.

      When ice sheets melt, the additional water, added to the oceans, causes sea-level to rise immediately (though not evenly: the mass distribution shift causes the greatest sea-level rise to be in the parts of the oceans farthest from the melting ice sheets). But the offsetting sea-level decline, due to the resulting sinking of the ocean floor, which you anticipate, is very slow. It takes tens of thousands of years.

      In fact, the ocean floor is still sinking due to downward pressure from the water that was added to the oceans during the last great deglaciation, which largely ended about 7,000 years ago!

      So if a substantial portion of the remaining great ice sheets, in Greenland and Antarctica, were to melt, sea-level would rise immediately, and only subside very slowly. In between, sea-level could be a lot higher than it is today. So you’re wrong.

      The good news is that it isn’t happening. Sea-level is rising no faster now than it was more than 85 years ago, when CO2 was under 310 ppmv. A 30% increase in atmospheric CO2, plus a 75% increase in CH4, has caused no detectable increase in the rate of sea-level rise. Obviously, anthropogenic GHGs have little effect on sea-level:

  49. jamestman says:

    Is someone confusing erosion with rising water levels again. dag nabbit !

  50. Attilashrugs says:

    E tuttavia non si è riscaldato.

  51. jamestman says:

    When billions in Federal funding are on the line … just sayin.

  52. Attilashrugs says:

    E tuttavia non si sta riscaldando!

  53. Jimcommanman says:

    I would like to thank all of you out there with science backgrounds that are exposing this fraud. It is comforting to see that there are those still willing stand in the face of adversity and call out the liars for what they are. You will be called heroes by future generations because you were willing to stand up for the truth. The beast that is perpetrating this hoax is well funded and ruthless and will continue to try and influence and control the narrative to their own gain. 25 years ago this hoax would have been swallowed whole by the uninformed masses. I too was one of them. I’m not a scientist and I can’t keep up with all of the fraudulent and manipulated studies that have been passed as “scientific fact”. I pray that you “Science Knights” will continue to protect and defend the truth and to expose the rot that is being passed as science around the world by these master manipulators. The Beast will not relent, it will attack you and try and discredit you. Stand fast, the rest of us are counting on your expertise and stand beside you.

  54. Ed McNally says:

    Using NASA’s altered data, we’re talking a whopping 6 inches. So I suppose we should at least call out the Coast Guard to rescue the Lego folks from their flooded Lego homes.

  55. Earl says:

    While I have always been a supporter of NASA, didn’t Obama change NASA’s prime directive to be “Muslim Outreach” a couple of years ago. No wonder the science is falling by the wayside.

  56. Sam Davis says:

    So I’m on the fence about this whole thing – all my friends talk about this from time to time and only one of my buddies is saying that global warming is phony and the whole rest of the crew thinks he is dumb for it. I want to know whether he’s right or not, but I am the first to say that the US Gov’t is capable of some epic sketchiness. I just dont know enough so I usually just keep my mouth shut, so hopefully one of yall can solidify my position one way or another.

    What about all of the governments and universities from the REST of the world that did their own, independently conducted, studies supporting the conclusion that the earth is warming? I see a lot of National Aeronautics and Space Administration bashing on here, but I figured yall might understand something that other people are ignoring. So ignoring NASA for arguements sake, there are a crapton of other organizations in no way affiliated with the US Gov’t that have come to their own conclusion that climate change is real, so what’s their deal if its all made up? Whats in it for them?

    Thanks for your time everyone, hopefully I can come to my friends help or maybe he really is wrong lol idk.
    -Sam D.

  57. Aranhas says:

    Come on! Does any thinking person still believe in human-caused global warming? If there is global warming, and that is a big IF, there is nothing humans can do about it. Try to stop an ice age or the warming that occurred 18,000 years ago. The clue to the stupidity of global warming is the idea that the government is behind it. Once the government gets behind anything it is a bogus issue. The “government” spends 4 billion dollars a year promoting global warming. If you are a disbeliever, you lose your job. No government employee is allowed to speak against global warming. That tell you everything. The “97% of scientists” who support the idea? Try 17%. 97% of scientists won’t agree if a traffic light is red or green. Some future historians are going to get a big laugh out of all this and a few families are going to make hundreds of millions of dollars off it (think Gore).

  58. BMF says:

    Since the first Earth Day in 1970, not a single doom and gloom predictions made by alarmist within their own predicted time frames or afterwards has ever materialized.

    When you’ve been wrong 46 years in a row, I would think rational people would begin to question the theory of global warming. During the end of the Ice Age some 10,000 to 15,000 years ago, the ice cap that covered one third of North America began to melt. Was that due to cavemen roasting rabbits over their open fires? Of course not. It was due to a change in the cycle of Earth’s climate that has been ongoing for billions of years.

    The fact is CO2 levels have been much higher and much lower in the past–and here we are today.

    There is a temperature difference between Florida and North Dakota that is magnitudes greater than anything the IPCC has ever predicted. Some prefer to live in North Dakota. I prefer to live in Florida (I used to live in North Dakota, Newfoundland, and New England–but I’ve always hated being cold).

    The odd thing about the warming alarmists is that they never use all of the reporting stations in their data and they interpolate temperatures in ways that make no sense.

    Anyway, the warming alarmist have not only been wrong in their predictions compared to actual observations, but virtually all of their data has been manipulated from actual data collected by sensors. For example, satellite data shows no global warming, but manipulated data shows doom and gloom.

    So who are you going to believe? People who have a profit and political motive for climate change or historical records going back millions of years and actual observations that show the alarmist to be exaggerating?

  59. Truth Detector says:


  60. Tom says:

    well, what did we expect? After all, NASA’s number 1 priority is Muslim outreach, remember?

  61. Sean says:

    Y’all obviously can’t read. The two graphs are on two separate axes and are of two different things.

    • tonyheller says:

      Moron alert

    • Dave Burton says:

      No, Sean, they are not. Both graphs are from NASA GISS, both are supposedly graphs of global average sea-level from tide gauges, and Tony scaled the two graphs so that the axis scales match exactly.

      The recent GISS graph (which they credit to CSIRO) shows about 170 mm of SLR from 1880 to 1980 (1.7 mm/yr).

      On the same page, just above that graph, they show another graph of sea-level. That one is from satellite altimetry. It shows twice the rate of SLR: 3.4 mm/yr, despite the fact that here’s been no increase in the rate of SLR recorded by the world’s tide gauges.

      Here’s a bigger version of the 1983 graph, with grid lines added. You can see that it shows only about 100 mm of SLR from 1880 to 1980, which is a little over half the rate that NASA now claims from tide-gauge measurements, and less than 1/3 the rate they claim from satellite altimetry.

  62. Jerry Ranch says:

    Modern day Lysenkoism

  63. George Suarez says:

    Wake up sheeple, this has nothing to do with Data. It’s about giving money to the rest of the world. It’s a scam, and nothing more. Need to deplete America so we can have our fine One World Government. Can’t do that with America in the way.

    • B Pugh says:

      I read that somewhere many years ago and it was from a Council on Foreign Relations official like Kissinger, i believe. Now, i see it going toward some kind of fruition.

  64. st8kout says:

    Like the founder of the Weather Channel said, “It has nothing to do with the weather. It’s all about giving the UN more power and control.

  65. A human concerned about the health of our planet says:

    Actually water is a good absorber of LWIR (longwave infrared) as well as visible light. The reason LWIR doesn’t penetrate deep into it (which is a fact that even you pointed out) is because LWIR is ABSORBED quite well by water. This will heat the surface, but the ocean currents will help mix up the water to drive the heat downward. This will on average cause oceans to become hotter. Abnormal heating of the oceans though will alter the currents, changing climate and even leading to COOLING in some places. In effect, our entire weather cycles will be thrown into COMPLETE CHAOS, resulting in extinctions of THOUSANDS of species, possibly even OUR OWN!

    • AndyG55 says:

      ” LWIR is ABSORBED quite well by water”

      RUBBISH. !!!

    • AndyG55 says:

      If you are REALLY concerned about the wellbeing of the planet, then we need MORE atmospheric CO2.

    • Doug Cotton says:

      It is well known that LWIR from a cooler region in the atmosphere does not even penetrate warmer water by more than a few nanometers – basically until it finds a molecule to “resonate” with. Its energy only ever becomes electron energy, not thermal (kinetic) energy, and a similar photon is re-emitted as part of the target’s Planck quota. Physicists call it pseudo scattering. This is how Nature ensures that every one-way pencil of radiation obeys the Second Law. The heat transfer corresponds to the radiation represented by the area between the Planck curves as such radiation does not resonate and thus gets thermalized. (See my 2012 paper linked from the ‘Evidence’ page on my website on this.)

      • Doug Cotton says:

        PS: This of course is the last nail in the coffin for the radiative forcing greenhouse conjecture which, if it were true, would require every watt of both solar radiation and atmospheric radiation to warm the surface to (within 10 degrees of) observed temperatures.

      • Dave Burton says:

        That’s incoherent gibberish. If it were true that LWIR absorbed by water were only remitted as similar photons, and not converted to thermal energy, then the amount of IR emitted by a body of water would depend both on its temperature and on the amount of IR that it absorbs. It doesn’t. The only way that absorbed IR affects emitted IR from water is by warming the water. The amount of IR emitted by a body of water depends only on the temperature & surface area of the water.

        There is never a “one-way pencil of radiation” between two objects, unless one of the objects is at absolute zero. The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to net energy flows. Radiation from warm objects warms cooler ones, and radiation from cool objects warms warmer ones. The reason the 2nd law works is simply that warmer objects emit more radiation than cooler objects, so the net energy flow is from warmer to cooler.

        Individual photons do not carry information about the temperatures of the objects which emitted them, and do not refuse to be absorbed by molecules they encounter if those molecules are warmer than the objects which emitted them.

        When an IR photon escapes the Earth, on a trajectory which causes it to strike the Sun, it will be absorbed by the Sun, and it warms the Sun by an infinitesimally tiny amount.

  66. StoicAbSpartan says:

    A very long time ago a national expert in my then field in industry sent out a very long lecture to all of us in the QA/QC community about measurements, calculation and significant digits in our reporting. Just because you have a 10 digit calculator if your measurements and calculation justify only 2 digits report only 2 digits dammit.
    Until we get access to all of the raw data with the error in each measurement along with all of the calculations performed we have no clue as to whether the reported results or anywhere near correct or complete B.S. Until they release the adjustments for each data point adjusted, what the adjustment was and specifically the justification for the adjustment for each point we must assume that the reported results are tainted. If they want buy in then give us all of the above. Let us check their work. That is what science is all about.
    I think that we may be experiencing what one of my physics teachers used to say to us a very long time ago. “You guys have done it again. You have jumped from unwarranted assumptions to forgone conclusions without being hindered in the least by the facts.” It made us fell like children as it was intended to and did.

    • Jason Calley says:

      Hey Stoic! “Until they release the adjustments for each data point adjusted, what the adjustment was and specifically the justification for the adjustment for each point we must assume that the reported results are tainted. If they want buy in then give us all of the above. Let us check their work. That is what science is all about.”

      THANK YOU! Great summation of the situation. What the alarmists are feeding us is NOT science. It is nothing more than assertion without a real justification.

  67. Scubasteve says:

    Can someone please address my observation/concern about rising sea level. I’ve lived and or worked in the back bays of a region of coastal NY for 50 years. High tide used to be a number of feet beneath the top of bulkheads is the area. Now it is more often measured in inches, and not without any particular astronomical event. Moderate Nor’easters cause street flooding and tideflex valves had to be installed on storm drain pipes. I’m not imagining this. Many miles of bulkhead didn’t sink. My own bulkhead was recently surveyed and it’s elevation is unchanged, and yet, the water, the docks. the ramps, even the hardware has been modified to accommodate the “new” normal high tide. For that matter, friends boats don’t make clearance under a few bridges at high tide like they used to, and that’s only in the last 20 years. What am I missing?

    • StoicAbSpartan says:

      I don’t know how but water must be piling up in the North Atlantic. I own a piece of Pacific Ocean frontage. I bought it about 30 years ago. It is in the same community my parents took me as a kid 65 years ago and my dad’s dad took him 85 years ago. Is far is I can tell the water is in the same place on the beach as it has always been. There has been significant accession on my beech over the last 100 years but I attribute that more to the State of Washington having seeded the beeches about 100 years ago with beech grass and pines. I don’t know if that is true but is was something I was told when I was a teenager around mid-century. It does explain the beech being way deeper than it was 50 and 100 years ago. To the south there is a beech, called Washaway Beech for obvious reasons. I remember being their in a storm around mid-century and watching the beech being washed out about 6 inches with every wave. The Coast Guard station was partly under water at high tide. So the sand goes from there to here for a while then maybe in the next century the currents will change a little and will move from here to there.
      I do remember in one of my geology class on a lecture about beeches being told that they were alive. Feed them they grow. Cut off feed they shrink.
      I don’t know how the Pacific Ocean can be lower than the Atlantic for more than a very short time, water running down hill and all.

    • exNOAAman says:

      Construction of a groin or breakwater (or several) can cause the flood tide to funnel into smaller areas, thus increasing the height above the pre-construction level. Water is piling up against the structure, and it has nowhere to go but up.
      Just something to consider, since no tide gauge in Long Island reflects the condition you describe .

  68. Doug Cotton says:

    A location on the Moon’s surface can cool by over 200 degrees in about two weeks, getting down to around -150°C on the dark side. Now, Antarctica is on the dark side of Earth for over three months in winter, but its temperature remains fairly steady in the vicinity of -50°C to -60°C. But there must be at least some loss of energy via radiation through the atmospheric window to Space. So what replenishes that energy? Clearly the difference between the Moon and the Earth has something to do with the atmosphere. Hence the energy must come from the atmosphere, but wherever the atmosphere is colder than the Antarctic surface, there can be no heat transfer by radiation. There can however be a process which increases entropy in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and you can read about that process at because that is where this mystery energy does in fact come from. When you understand this process and note the overwhelming evidence supporting its existence then, and only then, will you have a correct understanding as to why the radiative greenhouse is nothing but fiction.

    * Second law of thermodynamics: In a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems increases.

    • Dave Burton says:

      Doug Cotton wrote, wherever the atmosphere is colder than the Antarctic surface, there can be no heat transfer by radiation.”

      Wrong. The net heat flow is from warmer material to colder material, but colder objects certainly do emit radiation which is absorbed by warmer objects, and increases the temperature of those warmer objects, above what that temperature otherwise would be.

      Whenever radiation is absorbed by an object, its temperature increases. It doesn’t matter what the temperature was of the object which emitted that radiation.

      When you sleep at night, your blanket is cooler than your body, yet it helps keep your body warm. That is not a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

  69. Robertv says:

    And than things from the past hit again.

  70. Dave Burton says:

    Initially, that GISS link didn’t work for me, and I thought that GISS’s site was down.

    Before I figured out what was going on, I searched the web for this Hansen paper, and found a much cleaner copy, here:
    I saved it here:
    It is clearer and higher resolution than GISS’s copy, and it has been OCR’d, and it includes a reply from the authors on whose paper Hansen et al were commenting.

    I extracted that “Fig. 1” from it, blew it up, trimmed off the extraneous stuff, and added thin, grey grid lines, and put the result here:

    It turns out that GISS’s site was not actually down. GISS had blocked my IP address!

    It was an innocent mistake on their part, and they’ve now unblocked my IP address (details below).

    The reason my IP address got blocked by GISS is interesting, in a geeky sort of way.

    I’m in the lazy habit of opening files by URL, in Windows programs. That is, when I find a file on a web site that I’d like to load into a word processor, spreadsheet program, or picture editor, I often simply paste the file’s URL into the program’s File->Open dialog. I find that’s usually quicker and easier than manually downloading the file and saving a local copy, and then opening the local copy.

    That works because most Windows programs use a handy standard Windows API function called GetOpenFileName() for the File->Open dialog. It conveniently allows the substitution of a URL in place of the file path.

    When you enter a URL in place of a file path, GetOpenFileName() downloads a copy of the file behind the scenes, to a temporary location, and then the program transparently opens the local copy from the temporary location.

    When Windows downloads a file in that way, the Windows system library sends a User-Agent string to the web server which identifies the “browser” as “Microsoft-WebDAV-MiniRedir…”

    Apparently, some evil ‘bot programs also identify themselves with that same User-Agent string, presumably because they’re running under Windows. GISS’s IT people noticed that, but didn’t realize that the Microsoft-WebDAV-MiniRedir User-Agent string is not specific to evil ‘bots. So they erroneously configured their server monitoring scripts to watch for that User-Agent string, and take drastic action.

    When their script saw that User-Agent strong come from my IP address, it blocked my IP address entirely!

    As a result, I was without access to GISS’s web site for several weeks. Finding that Hansen paper w/o access to GISS’s web site was like an Easter egg hunt.

    First I found a reference to it in Yahoo’s cache of a GISS page, which included the paper’s DOI:

    Hansen, J., V. Gornitz, S. Lebedeff, and E. Moore, 1983: Global mean sea level: Indicator of climate change? Science, 219, 997, doi:10.1126/science.219.4587.997.

    Finding the DOI was half the battle. Once I had that, I just went to sci-hub and searched by DOI (with the sci-hub Chrome extension installed), and downloaded the paper.

    BTW, if you’re not using sci-hub, you’re missing out, big time!

    Sci-hub is a great equalizer, bypassing the academic publishing extortion racket, and enabling private sector people who don’t work at universities to have access to most of the academic literature that university students and professors take for granted. Lack of that access is one of the greatest barriers to conducting scientific research and publishing peer-reviewed literature, for people outside academia.

    As of yesterday afternoon, is being blocked, but you can still access Sci-Hub via:
    …or via Tor at:

    You can also use the https prefix to encrypt your connection, and that’s a good idea. But their SSL cert isn’t signed for most of those domains, so you’ll need to click “Advanced->Proceed” (Chrome), or “Advanced->Add Exception” (FIrefox), or “Continue to this website” (Internet Explorer), or similar, when you see the scary “unsafe” or “security problem” warnings.

    The Sci-Hub facebook page is useful, too:

Leave a Reply to Dave Burton Cancel reply

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