From the MANHATTAN CONTRARIAN Francis Menton
The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time is the fraud by which government functionaries alter data collected and previously reported in official data bases in order to support a narrative of impending catastrophic global warming. No other scientific fraud in world history comes close to this one in scope or significance. While prior frauds may have scored a crooked scientist some funding or maybe some temporary fame, this one drives trillions of dollars of worldwide government spending and seeks to transform the entire world economy.
Menton has posted many times all concerned with alteration of one particular sort of data, namely temperature records. The posts document how, at station after station, previously-reported data have been altered to make earlier temperatures cooler and later ones warmer, and thus to show an enhanced warming trend (or in many cases to replace a cooling trend with a warming trend). The altered temperatures then form the basis for hockey-stick shaped charts of world temperatures, showing rapid recent warming, and for claims from NASA and NOAA and the media that the most recent year or month was the “warmest ever.”
But why should we really care that the earth’s atmosphere is getting a little warmer? The UN has supposedly set some kind of Maginot Line at a 1.5 deg C temperature increase from 20th century levels — an amount so small that you can barely feel it when it occurs each day. The 1.5 deg mark is just not that all that scary. So the bureaucrats and leftists need a Plan B to scare the bejeezus out of the people. Plan B is sea level rise.
So don’t be surprised to learn that the sea level data, produced by NASA, have recently been altered — and of course, in a way to enhance the global warming scare narrative.
With a little looking you can quickly find hundreds of articles endlessly repeating the narrative that human-caused global warming is melting polar ice caps and thus causing the sea level to rise. But note that for this narrative to be effective requires more than just a linear rising. After all, skeptics quickly point out that the sea level has been rising at a slow, steady rate of a few millimeters per year since the end of the last ice age. So, to actually be scary, the narrative needs to be that sea level is not just rising, but that the rise is accelerating.
Sure enough, that is the party line. Thus here from the NASA website posted in November 2022 and still there today, we find a statement of the official position: Global sea level has been rising for decades in response to a warming climate, and multiple lines of evidence indicate the rise is accelerating. The new findings support the higher-range scenarios outlined in an interagency report released in February 2022. That report, developed by several federal agencies – including NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the U.S. Geological Survey – expect significant sea level rise over the next 30 years by region. . . . The researchers noted that the accelerating rate of sea level rise detected in satellite measurements from 1993 to 2020 – and the direction of those trends – suggest future sea level rise will be in the higher range of estimates for all regions.
NASA is the guru of the sea level rise data because, starting in 1993, NASA put up satellites with altimeters to measure sea level. The data have been made public on a NASA web page, and various researchers have gone through the data looking for trends. Some have claimed to find an acceleration in sea level rise. For example, a 2018 article in PNAS by Nerem, et al., titled “Climate-change-driven accelerated sea-level rise detected in the altimeter era” asserted that the authors had detected an acceleration of 0.084 +/- 0.025 mm/yr^2. But is that purported acceleration real and, if real, is it significant?
L DATA WITH LINEAR FIT
NASA SEA LEVEL DATA WITH PARABOLIC FIT
A first obvious question is, does your eye detect in the plot of data points any acceleration in the rate of rise? It is certainly not apparent to me. What is very apparent is that there was an anomalous increase in the rate of rise in 2017/18, followed by two years of actual decreases. Those two years of unusual increases may well explain the results of the Nerem, et al., paper (published in 2018).
The linear fit shows a steady increase of 3.2629 mm/yr. (That would be about one foot per century.). The R^2 is a measure of the closeness of the fit of the line to the scattered data points, and an R^2 of 0.9869 is a remarkably close fit. With this close a fit, and the line actually higher at the right side than the most recent data point, is there really any basis to claim an ability to detect an acceleration?
But meanwhile, in early March the sea level data reported by NASA suddenly got altered. Here is a graph provided by Bill showing the NASA data before and after alteration:
Before Willis at NASA cut off correspondence, Bill got the following (totally inadequate) explanation for the alterations: “[T]he data on the websites was recently updated to include improved estimates of sea level from our first precision sea level satellite, TOPEX/Poseidon, and to correct small errors in later missions. Sure. Most of the actual readings have become lower, but an enhanced curvature has been introduced. The quadratic formula of the best fit for the red (altered) data points now would imply an acceleration rate of 0.065 mm/yr^2. That’s still well less than the 0.085 mm/yr^2 claimed in the Nerem, et al., paper, but at least not so embarrassingly far off.
Is all of this anything to get scared about? Absolutely not. As stated earlier, linear sea level rise of about 3.3 mm/yr is consistent with what has been going on throughout history since the last ice age, and implies a rise of around one foot by 2100. Nerem, et al., state in their paper that the acceleration rate that they estimate of 0.084 mm/yr^2 would imply sea level rise of 65 cm by 2100, which is 25.6 inches, or just over 2 feet. The rate of 0.045 mm/yr^2 derived from the unaltered NASA data would imply a much smaller increase by 2100 of about 16 inches, really not much more than the ongoing linear trend.
