ADVERTISEMENT

NASA Confirms Falling Sea Levels For Two Years

MTLynn

Hall of Famer
Jan 27, 2003
8,693
2,189
113
NASA Confirms Falling Sea Levels For Two Years Amidst Media Blackout
Mac Slavo
July 27th, 2017

Most media outlets cannot be bothered to report something that dramatically deflates their narrative. So it goes without saying that when NASA confirmed that ocean levels have actually been falling for the past few years, the media would be more than silent.

As the global warming narrative quickly unravels, and leftists scramble to throw accusations at those who dare question the false data, the media brushes facts under the rug. Amidst revelations of scientific fraud, data alteration and faked “hockey stick” data models, the fake news media remains suspiciously silent over the fact that NASA now confirms ocean levels have been falling for nearly two years.

On a NASA page intended to spread climate alarmism (https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/), NASA’s own data reveal that worldwide ocean levels have been falling for nearly two years, dropping from a variation of roughly 87.5mm to below 85mm. This data clearly contradicts the false narrative of rapid, never-ending rising ocean levels that flood continents and drown cities. The narrative is climate alarmists key element of the climate change fear mongering fiction that’s used to scare gullible youth into making Al Gore rich.

Global warming alarmists might say this is only a “pause” in the rising ocean levels, and that the long-term trend is clearly in the direction of rising oceans. However, these people wildly exaggerate the degree of ocean level increases to the point of absurdity and have been caught red-handed completely fabricating data to continue scaring the public into supporting a non-issue.

Even in a worse case scenario, sea levels will rise only about a foot over the next 100 years. That amount is far short of what climate alarmists would need to create an apocalyptic event based solely on the weather. Looking at current events right now, we’d say that Armageddon would be created by a world war or a global economic collapse.

Even a warmer planet would be more hospitable to plants. But again, warmth as a benefit for plant life is not something climate alarmists want to hear. They need their backsides patted by the same lies.
 
I enjoy when you post these articles. Looking through the data that people don't expect you to look through and clicking on links that they don't think you will just so you think that it is real. If you actually click on the nasa link it shows that in the past 20 years the sea level has risen 84.8mm. Around this date in in 2015 it was right around 85mm. In March of 2016 it was around 88. So I don't see how they ascertain that it has been declining for the last two years, since it has definitely been above what it was two years ago. I guess they missed the graph reading portion of their elementary and middle school mathematics courses.

One of the names on the study they are citing is "Dr." Joseph D'Aleo. He was given an honorary PHD from Lyndon State College. I can't find much information about Dr. James P. Wallace III, and where I can find him, its mostly fake news sites like the ones listed in your articles. The last person listed on that document, Dr. Craig D. Idso, has a PHD in Geography.

So all these guys are probably very smart people, but none of their learning was done specifically on the environment or anything that would be related to rising water levels.

So, I am not saying they are full of shit, but I only got as far as their names and one NASA website and the shit is starting to unravel.
 
I enjoy when you post these articles. Looking through the data that people don't expect you to look through and clicking on links that they don't think you will just so you think that it is real. If you actually click on the nasa link it shows that in the past 20 years the sea level has risen 84.8mm. Around this date in in 2015 it was right around 85mm. In March of 2016 it was around 88. So I don't see how they ascertain that it has been declining for the last two years, since it has definitely been above what it was two years ago. I guess they missed the graph reading portion of their elementary and middle school mathematics courses.

One of the names on the study they are citing is "Dr." Joseph D'Aleo. He was given an honorary PHD from Lyndon State College. I can't find much information about Dr. James P. Wallace III, and where I can find him, its mostly fake news sites like the ones listed in your articles. The last person listed on that document, Dr. Craig D. Idso, has a PHD in Geography.

So all these guys are probably very smart people, but none of their learning was done specifically on the environment or anything that would be related to rising water levels.

So, I am not saying they are full of shit, but I only got as far as their names and one NASA website and the shit is starting to unravel.

You are right. This is complete crap.

First, not all scientists are liberals. I land somewhere between conservative and libertarian. So many friends in science are tea party conservatives to moderates....

Second, you are right - from NASA's own website, here is the sea level trend. If you look at the numbers from March 15, 2017 the levels are 84.8 +/- 0.8 mm. The level on March 2, 2015 was 80.8 +/- 0.8 mm. That means, in 2 years, the numbers have actually went up. So no, NASA did not confirm sea levels are going down (unless they can't read their own charts).

If you go to NASA's climate change website, carbon dioxide, temperature, and sea levels are trending up. Percent ice on earth has went down. So the data supports that climate is changing.
 
The problem with the religion of climate change/global warming/global cooling is that the preachers change their sermon every few years. No matter, their worshipers never waver in blind loyalty

12143099_1009067949144174_1203493521634334656_n.jpg
 
Last edited:
The problem with the religion of climate change/global warming/global cooling is that the preachers change their sermon every few years. No matter, their worshipers never waver in blind loyalty

12143099_1009067949144174_1203493521634334656_n.jpg

A few points:

1. You didn't address the questions raised. Your first post said that NASA confirms dropping sea levels.
In March 2015 the level was at 80.8 +/- 0.8 and in March 2017 it is at 84.8 +/- 0.8. So in 2 years, has
the level went up, down, or stayed the same?

2. Actually, good science should change overtime if necessary. Science never "proves" anything. Science tests a hypothesis and then compares the experimental results to see they support or fail to support the hypothesis. If the same hypothesis is tested repeatedly and the data supports continue to supports the data, it becomes theory. If we have ran out of ways to test a theory and the data always supports it, we call it a law. A scientific law is not proven, it's just no one can think of a way to test it that does not support the hypothesis. Really good explanation by Richard Feynman here.

So the current hypothesis that man contributes to climate change is supported by >greater than 95% of scientific studies. Are all the predicitions about the results of climate change going to be accurate? Of course not.

So you can cherry pick different predictions on a timeline about climate science and make any predictions look incorrect. You can also find publications over the past 40 years that make predictions that have been accurate. So do you only focus on those that turned out wrong or do you look at the entire picture.

Seriously man, what do you have against science?
 
I love science. I hate fraud.

And like everything else those with power try to shove down the public throat, global warming/cooling is fraud.

Freeze or fry, the problem is always industrial capitalism, and the solution is always international socialism.
 
I love science. I hate fraud.

And like everything else those with power try to shove down the public throat, global warming/cooling is fraud.

Freeze or fry, the problem is always industrial capitalism, and the solution is always international socialism.

Here is my thing. I'm a conservative/libertarian. I'm also a scientist.

I look at the data and support vaccination. I look at the data and it supports the idea man is contributing to climate change.

The stances are scientific, not conservative, liberal, libertarian, socialist or any other political ideology. You can't judge the science based on what a politician or news source does with the data to twist their own agenda.
 
In other words, you believe the "science" fed to you by the rich and powerful. There is no way they would skew, manipulate, or falsify data, right?
 
I don't know about the data - I hear everyone saying this and that is a fact but then the predictions of doom and gloom never happen...my view is in general, sure Man could contribute to it and in general we should be take care of our resources and manage the environment and not be careless, but at the end of the day we cannot control the Sun and the rays it omits. We can't control in general the cooling phases or the warming phases. We have history of these phases. They happened when we didn't have the same industrial complex and number of humans running around.

Then there are the solutions - they seem crazy to me and really are about redistribution of money that "if" they work just will not make much difference.

I will take it more serious when those that are convinced we can do something live their lives in such a way that shows their commitment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MTLynn
If you believe the "science" that is presented in these fake articles you post that can easily be shot holes into, then there is no stopping your idiocy.

What is wrong with developing technology that is less harmful to the environment? That creates jobs. What actually do you not like about getting away from energy sources that pollute the world we live in and are finite. Why not use energy sources that are for the most part infinite?
 
Peach! You found your way out of the cave! Before you go back, here is another article for you to chew on before we all freeze to death

NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses

Did you read the article or just the headline? By using this article as support for your argument, you did a few things:

1. This article argues against falsifying data. They say they are in agreement with other studies about ice discharge in the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctic, but are in disagreement with the studies in other parts. If they were skewing data, wouldn't the NASA show increased discharge to match every other study?

2. The scientist that you are trying to use to support your overall argument said in the same article,
"if the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years -- I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.”

3. The article also said, "“But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”

Here's what is interesting, you ignore all work NASA and assume its skewed, false or incorrect until you find one headline that you thing supports your narrative. When you read the article, the study cited actually supports NASA doesn't skew data and actually overall data supports ice melting/sea level changes - which support the hypothesis of climate change.

By going by the headline and not reading the article, Lynn literally just linked an article that supported overall climate change.

And now that Lynn has used NASA as a reputable source, I guess that means these other NASA articles must be reputable:

Global Sea Ice Diminishing, Despite Antarctic Gains.

A newer article showing Sea ice extent sinks to record lows at both poles.
 
In other words, you believe the "science" fed to you by the rich and powerful. There is no way they would skew, manipulate, or falsify data, right?

Fed by the rich and powerful? For vaccines, I work with and I am friends with the people who did the bench work to identify the components of the flu vaccine. I had dinner with a woman who did the flu vaccine safety work in animals. My good friend, the reverend at my wedding, is doing potential vaccine efficacy studies. My work was identifying vaccine targets. I trust my own work and the people I know that are in the field, that have been at the bench doing the lab work.

For climate change? To get 97% of scientists to agree on anything is almost impossible. When DNA first was identified as the genetic code, some still wanted to argue it was protein. The fact that 97% of studies support some man contributing to climate change at some level and that studies from private, public, govt., academic labs across the world support these data and its reproducible strongly argues that there is something to it. Sure some labs may falsify data. But 100s of labs across the world coming up with the same results? It's not just NASA saying it.

I know it doesn't matter what I say on either topic. I hate the fact that these topics became political. It makes it impossible to have an untainted discussion about the science that are not viewed through red/blue glasses.
 
It has nothing to do with red or blue. This is about corruption - big oil, military contractors, pharma, global warming, etc, protect their profits and their power 24/7/365.

Get in the way and you are smeared, financially destroyed, or shoot yourself in the back of the head.

BTW, we have lots of climate change - five major ice ages, right? How many were caused by man?

Your reverend algore said we are gonna burn up from man made global warming. When are we going to burn up?
 
Last edited:
It has nothing to do with red or blue. This is about corruption - big oil, military contractors, pharma, global warming, etc, protect their profits and their power 24/7/365.

Get in the way and you are smeared, financially destroyed, or shoot yourself in the back of the head.

BTW, we have lots of climate change - five major ice ages, right? How many were caused by man?

Your reverend algore said we are gonna burn up from man made global warming. When are we going to burn up?

Where did I say I believe or like Al Gore? Where did I say I agree with his predictions? Feel free to use quotes.

Another question - sure climate has changed on earth overtime. How does previous changes mean that man cannot contribute to change now?

A third question, How does the industries you mention using or misusing the data doesn't change the data? Since independent labs outside of those industries are publishing as well.

The funny thing is, our "debates" would be like me arguing with a hedge fund manger that I know more about the stock market and investing, and when he tried to explain anything to me that I disagreed with, I would tell him he is wrong and its all corrupt because of Lehman Brothers and the like.
 
The funny thing is, our "debates" would be like me arguing with a hedge fund manger that I know more about the stock market and investing, and when he tried to explain anything to me that I disagreed with, I would tell him he is wrong and its all corrupt because of Lehman Brothers and the like.
I didn't know that you produced climate research and vaccine research for a living.

I figured you were someone who read research that may or may not be legitimate. If the research is produced by a monied interest, it is most assuredly tainted.

This is a perfect example of a scam that has been repeated countless times but reported only once - and will likely not be reported in the mainstream ever again
 
Last edited:
I didn't know that you produced climate research and vaccine research for a living.

I figured you were someone who read research that may or may not be legitimate. If the research is produced by a monied interest, it is most assuredly tainted.

This is a perfect example of a scam that has been repeated countless times but reported only once - and will likely not be reported in the mainstream ever again

I have never published anything on climate change. I do have colleagues that went into that field and work in conservation biology and study evolution & ecology today. Without coming right out and saying it, I have basically told you where I work when it comes to our vaccine talks.

I agree that if an industry subsidized the research, then it is highly questionable (see tobacco, industries pumping anti-bacterial agents in common household products, "organic" foods, non-GMO foods, etc). But there was no cover up at the CDC on vaccines. Basically, Thompson's made some comments that were completely twisted to fit an agenda. And Andrew Wakefield really is a nut the made falsified his work. Big Pharm really doesn't make alot of money on vaccines due to all the work and costs before they are approved. Big Pharm makes more money on long-term care for disease (see the epipen).

For climate change, the raw data looks pretty bad. I'm not sure which prediction model will be the most accurate, but the data supports the idea that man is doing damage that could drastifically affect people's lives in the future. The problem everytime we (people in general) try to have an honest talk about what the data supports, we can't because the conversation has been polluated politicans, government intervention, and special interests. But alot of independent researchers keep coming up with the same general result.

There are alot of issues with science like non-reproducible studies, ethical issues like DURC, gene editing, budgetary cuts encouraging falsifying data to keep jobs, and the FDA not regulating claims made on vitamins and supplements (or purity), things like these.

But based on the information we currently have, the safety of our current vaccines and man contributing to climate changes is supported by the data.
 
This is a perfect example of a scam that has been repeated countless times but reported only once - and will likely not be reported in the mainstream ever again

This statement is not exactly accurate.

Data about the 1976 swine flu that has been published actually tracked the 45 million vaccines that were given that year and the 450-500 people that developed GBS. So that's an occurent of 1 per 100,000 to 105,000. So for that particular vaccine, there was a 0.001% correlation. To be fair that rate is 10x greater than the normal occurence. In the 40 years since then, the occurence of GBS in flu vaccines has been tracked and GBS has occurred in 1 out of 1 million people given the flu vaccine for that year. By the way, the vaccine is usually adjusted every year.

The rate among unvaccinated people has actually been ~6 times higher than vaccinated for the past 40 years. So in the last 40 years, the data shows you were ~6 times less likely to develope GBS than if you were not vaccinated. Getting the flu vaccine or not, you have better odds of winning $50,000 in the lottery than getting GBS.

All these numbers are published. And if you get a flu shot, the paperwork still says there could be a rate association with GBS, even though there is no data to support any version of last 40+ versions of the flu vaccine.

All this information is readily available and published by the CDC. Here is the CDC website about all the historical concerns with vaccine safety.


Serious question - where's the scam?
 
Raider you are wasting your time. There are people out there who will never believe the research, no matter how strong it is. Everything is a conspiracy designed to sicken and suck money from the masses.
 
Twenty-Five Years Since The Ozone Hole Killed Us All
Posted on July 18, 2017 by tonyheller
DDT, Global Cooling, China Syndrome, Ozone Hole, Global Warming, Climate Change – the left moves seamlessly from one world ending snake oil scam to another. In 1992 they blamed the ozone hole on President Bush, and said it was going to kill us all.



12 Mar 1992, Page 8 – Detroit Free Press

NASA predicted an ozone hole over North America that winter, and said “it is far worse than we thought.”



20 Feb 1992, Page 39 – The Akron Beacon Journal

There never was a Northern Hemisphere Ozone Hole, and the one over Antarctica has not changed in size since the CFC ban was implemented.



https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/statistics/ytd_data.txt

The Democratic Party is the largest crime syndicate in history.
 
Twenty-Five Years Since The Ozone Hole Killed Us All
Posted on July 18, 2017 by tonyheller
DDT, Global Cooling, China Syndrome, Ozone Hole, Global Warming, Climate Change – the left moves seamlessly from one world ending snake oil scam to another. In 1992 they blamed the ozone hole on President Bush, and said it was going to kill us all.



12 Mar 1992, Page 8 – Detroit Free Press

NASA predicted an ozone hole over North America that winter, and said “it is far worse than we thought.”



20 Feb 1992, Page 39 – The Akron Beacon Journal

There never was a Northern Hemisphere Ozone Hole, and the one over Antarctica has not changed in size since the CFC ban was implemented.



https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/statistics/ytd_data.txt

The Democratic Party is the largest crime syndicate in history.


Please your heart. Your article from the Beacon and the NASA data supports the science of ozone depletion.

CFC's were the driving force behind ozone depletion. The science supported that if CFCs were not phased out, the ozone layer would be depleted. Like your own statement above, once CFCs were banned, the ozone layer stablized and modeling suggests as all countries continue to reduce CFCs, the modeling suggests the ozone layer may replenish.

So pre-CFC ban = ozone depletion. Just like YOU said, after the CFC ban = ozone stabilization and nature can even replinish ozone.

If CFCs had not been banned, depletion would have continued. So exactly what are you trying to say? That we shouldn't have banned CFCs? The data supports it was smart move.


Also, Ronald Reagan signed the Montreal protocol banning CFCs and agreed to cut our production of CFCs 50% 1999. Sooo.....what do democrats have to do with this?

Reagen's full statement:

"I am pleased to sign the instrument of ratification for the Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer. The protocol marks an important milestone for the future quality of the global environment and for the health and well-being of all peoples of the world. Unanimous approval of the protocol by the Senate on March 14th demonstrated to the world community this country's willingness to act promptly and decisively in carrying out its commitments to protect the stratospheric ozone layer from the damaging effects of chlorofluorcarbons and halons, but our action alone is not enough. The protocol enters into force next January only if at least 11 nations representing two-thirds of worldwide consumption of chlorofluorcarbons and halons ratify the agreement. Our immediate challenge, having come this far, is to promote prompt ratification by every signatory nation.

I believe the Montreal protocol, negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme, is an extremely important environmental agreement. It provides for internationally coordinated control of ozone-depleting substances in order to protect a vital global resource. It requires countries that are parties to reduce production and consumption of major ozone-depleting chemicals by 50 percent by 1999. It creates incentives for new technologies-chemical producers are already working to develop and market safer substitutes-and establishes an ongoing process for review of new scientific data and of technical and economic developments. A mechanism for adjustment of the protocol is established to allow for changes based upon the review process. The wisdom of this unique provision is already being realized.

Data made available only during the last few weeks demonstrate that our knowledge of ozone depletion is rapidly expanding. For our part, the United States will give the highest priority to analyzing and assessing the latest research findings to assure that the review process moves expeditiously.

The Montreal protocol is a model of cooperation. It is a product of the recognition and international consensus that ozone depletion is a global problem, both in terms of its causes and its effects. The protocol is the result of an extraordinary process of scientific study, negotiations among representatives of the business and environmental communities, and international diplomacy. It is a monumental achievement."
 

You are once against posting something that supports vaccination and helps support there is no cover up or scam.

The VAERS database is ran by HHS. CDC is part of HHS. So the same people provide to the public open information about every claimed adverse vaccine effect.

The VAERS database is where you can report any potential adverse affect. Right now any person can go on the website, make a false claim, and it will be in their database. The reason they are in the VAERS database currently is because they are unsubstantiated or can't be confirmed. The 108 claims could be completely made up. You can go on there today and make something up and it will show up in the database.

So prior to vaccines, we averaged ~ 500,000 cases of measles and 500 deaths per year. Because of vaccines, we are down to less than 100 cases on average (found mostly in unvaccinated individuals) and zero deaths. Also, accordign to anti-vax folks, its the mercury that supposed is making people sick in the MMR vaccine. But mercury was completely removed prior to 2004, so support your argument that vaccines kill people.

We have hit on alot of topics in this thread, but you haven't answered my questions. I will post them again.

1. Your first post was that NASA confirms sea levels have dropped over the past 2 years. The level in March 2017 was 84.8 +/- 0.8 mm and the level on March 2, 2015 was 80.8 +/- 0.8 mm. 84.8 is larger than 80.8 - so has the sea level dropped?

2. You claim vaccines are a scam and there is some sort of cover up. You referenced something over 40 years old (obviously vaccine science has improved in 4 decades, but whatever), and say it was never reported. You reference the VEARS database as an example to support you. The HHS (CDC) has an open website on the history of adverse effects and actually controls the database where any claim can be complete made up, and it is still open to the public. So once again, where is the cover-up?

3. You rip ozone science and say something about democrats. But the science showed as soon as soon as CFCs were banned, the ozone layer started improving. And Ronald Reagan signed treaty that reduced CFCs, that helped protect the ozone layer. Reagan did this - so what do democrats have to do with the science that Reagan supported?

4. We have since vaccines were introduced the morbidity rate has dropped by 99.98% and the mortality rate has dropped to 100%. So you would prefer 500,000 got measles and 500 die yearly instead of our current situation of zero deaths?

I saw a guy on a unicycle riding around by the anti-vax protesters outside the office yesterday. I really, REALLY hope that was you. In my mind - it was.
 
Now Chris, I said nothing about Ozone. I posted Tony Heller's article.

As far as vaccine science goes, this researcher disagrees with you:

 
Now Chris, I said nothing about Ozone. I posted Tony Heller's article.

As far as vaccine science goes, this researcher disagrees with you:


Then what was your point posting the article and making a comment about democrats? I've been a registered Republican and independent, so I know you are not talking about me.

That's great that someone disagrees about vaccines. My old boss use to say, if you don't publish it, you didn't do it. So where is their published study?

You did not attempt to answer any of my questions above. You just posted another article.

Who is Chris?
 
I try to avoid actually going to your linked sites because I don't want to give them clicks. As posted above, it looked like the "The Democratic Party is the largest crime syndicate in history," was an add-on and not part of the original article. I was wrong (see I can admit that) . But still doesn't change the questions really.

What was your purpose of posting an article about the ozone layer? How are the democrats involved in something Ronnie signed?

And other questions you haven't answered -

That's great that someone disagrees about vaccines. My old boss use to say, if you don't publish it, you didn't do it. So where is their published study?

The CDC offers online a history of vaccine mishaps and HHS (the parent to CDC) controls the VAERS database which allows anyone to report an adverse reaction to a vaccine (even if completely untrue). Where's the cover-up?

If ocean levels are at 84.8 mm in March 2017 and were at 80.8 mm in March 2015, was the original article you posted accurate?

You keep posting articles, figures, videos saying vaccines are bad. We have since vaccines were introduced the morbidity rate has dropped by 99.98% and the mortality rate has dropped to 100%. So you would prefer 500,000 got measles and 500 die yearly instead of our current situation of zero deaths? Do you believe the change in measles rates was due to vaccination or some other change?

Who is Chris?
 
I know a Chris who went to msu... it ain't you?

I post articles of interest whether I agree completely, partially or not at all. Like this:


In this ongoing study, we have, to date, identified 26 historical alarmist movements. None of the forecasts for the analogous alarms proved correct. In the 25 alarms that called for government intervention, the government impost regulations in 23. None of the 23 interventions was effective and harm was caused by 20 of them.

http://science.house.gov/sites/repu...essional hearing-R14 (2) armstrong update.pdf
 
ADVERTISEMENT