NASA Goes Full Stupid About Sea Level

They claim that flooding rivers are causing sea level to decline. Had anyone there actually passed pre-school level geography, they might know that rivers flow into the sea and return the water which fell as rain and snow. These same geniuses also claim that glaciers were melting at a record rate in 2010. What sort of drugs are these people smoking?

NASA Goes Full Stupid About Sea Level

h/t to Marc Morano

NASA Goes Full Stupid About Sea Level
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

56 Responses to NASA Goes Full Stupid About Sea Level - What's Your Take On The Story?

  1. Mike Davis says:

    I could explain it but some might think I am crazy for why they see things this way.
    Maybe I will attempt the explanation in the AM.

  2. GeologyJim says:

    This is full-on stupidity. Equivalent to claiming that Daylight Saving Time causes “more sunshine”.

    Journalistic ignorance continues its downward spiral.

    If sea-level is falling, no amount of rainfall can explain it. Sea level integrates over vast areas of the planet’s surface, so that no local weather phenomenon can exert an extraordinary effect on it.

    Next, we’ll hear that a pissant fire in some wooded area contributes to CO2 increase because the trees are no longer “doing their photosynthesis thing”.

    • Mike Davis says:

      DST does cause more sunshine. I used to go fishing after work and knew in October when time changed it started getting dark before I got to my fishing hole so the days were shorter because of the time change! Every one knows the days start getting longer after you change you clocks to DST so that must be the cause. ;)

  3. Al Gored says:

    OT… but ALARMING NEWS!!!

    “Climate change may leave Mount Everest ascent ice-free, say climbers

    Mission launched to measure change in Himalayas as anecdotal evidence grows of melting ice on mountain’s southern approach”

    Suzanne Goldenberg, Saturday 24 September 2011 19.16 BST

    Climbers say. So who will climb on this gravy train “mission”?

    This story was released on Sept. 24, at “19.16 BST.” BST is apparently Bull Sh!t Time.

    • Al Gored says:

      Update. Only one (quoted) climber says this: “John All, an expert on Nepal glaciers from the University of Western Kentucky.”

      “He said the terrain he crossed was very different from the landscapes described by earlier generations of climbers. Historic photographs of the Everest region also showed a longer and deeper covering of ice.”

      To quote Steven Goddard: “Greens Lament The Passing Of The LIA.”

      • Sparks says:

        Did you know it is the third pole?

        • Me says:

          WOW there is 4, 5, and 6 manbearpigs out there. Also note the PA, Politician Anonymous, it must be worse than we thought ®.

          • Al Gored says:


            Did Gore say there was more ice in the Himalayas – his “third pole” – than in Antarctica???

            God. Now I have to watch it twice…

            He did! And more! At Copenhagen no less.

            Classic video. Thanks.

          • Me says:

            So it still must be worse than we thought ®.

          • Al Gored says:

            No… couldn’t quite believe it so just watched that video yet again.

            Gore is not quite that dense. His reference to Antarctica stretched back into his rambling comment and was not a comparison to the Himalayas.

          • Al Gored says:

            Gore sure is worse than we thought. That may be one thing that actually is caused by AGW.

          • Sundance says:

            COP15 as I recall, is where prostitutes were restricted from selling their services for money and in and act of government defiance the prostitutes engaged in sex for free. Maybe Al lost focus thinking too much about the 4th pole and free hookers.

        • Me says:

          To include all of the cryosphere of the planet, including the third pole, the Himalayas. 100 times as much ice and snow in the Himalayas as in all the mountains in Europe, including Antarctica the great mass of ice on the planet, including the4 Andes and the Rockies and the other mountain glaciers.
          Then coo doo’s to Joe blow BLA BLA and he apologizes for not being POTUS, but is now in PA, Politician Anonymous.

    • Mike Davis says:

      The main problem with Everest is the number of tourists that go there to watch the decline of the ice are causing the decline of the ice. In the interview they even admit that. When explorers first started climbing it was remote and now it is another tourist trap destroying what was once wilderness. During the winter, when it snows, where I walk is where the snow melts first. The same principle applies to the ice.

  4. Sparks says:

    WTF. So Now sea levels fell because of Anthropogenic climate change AKA global warming?

  5. Ivan says:

    Nothing new in this …

  6. Traitor in Chief says:

    Contraction from cooling is obvious. But there is some measure of seawater that became ice/snow that didn’t melt over the summer. Greenland and Antarctica may have had record snow the last few years. Cooling isn’t warming. When ice and snow increase, it doesn’t happen because the surrounding region is balmy.

  7. It’s “Post Normal Science” talking. Find an explanation that 95% of the scientifically uneducated population will accept at face value (scientists talking here), and plug it relentlessly. Judging by that graph, the “floods” must have delayed water returning to the sea by as much as a year.

    I read some time ago – might have been on that paragon of truth and objectivity Skeptical Science (I forget – I want to forget) that the reason that increased water vapour/clouds in the atmosphere (driven by CO2 warming) wasn’t resulting in an increase in river streamflow was – wait for it- that the consequent water from rainfall was being stored in reservoirs. The increased water vapour/clouds and reservoirs excuse was also touted as to why sea-level had begun to show a decline. The obvious disconnect in timescales for these phenomena wasn’t mentioned of course, neither was the fact that many (most?) rivers don’t have associated reservoirs, and no calculation for precipitation vs. storage.

  8. Ulrich Elkmann says:

    “What sort of drugs are these people smoking?” None. They’ve got religion, Mother Gaia denomination. Wonder why Marx called it “the OPIUM of the people”?

  9. Mike Davis says:

    I figured it out!
    The missing water is being stored in the water bottles on the store shelves and in the overweight population. If we eliminate bottled water and everyone drops to a sustainable 95 pounds the oceans would again start rising! ;)
    We also have to cut down all the vegetation on land because that stores water also. The ECO whackos that pushed for reforestation caused the problem because of all the trees they forced us to plant are holding a share of water that would normally be in the oceans.
    Think about all that water being stored in those beer cans. You beer drinkers out there are not doing your part by drinking enough beer to maintain the water balance. I must not leave out the Wine Drinkers either!

    • Latitude says:

      Lake Powell holds a lot more water than they thought…….LOL


      Higher CO2 levels make plants hold more water


      Their measurements of sea level are FUBAR

    • PJB says:

      Sea-level was rising from all of the overweight US bathers. Now, with everyone unemployed, they either can`t afford a beach vacation or they are losing weight from poor nutrition caused by poverty…

  10. suyts says:

    lol, I’m sure there’s a glass pipe involved.

  11. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t 5mm of ocean somewhere around 1,800,000,000,000 m³? (that is, approx 361,000,000km² (with 1,000,000m² for each km²) by 0.005m).

    That would be quite a bit of energy. I wonder if ol Trenberth’s missing heat is going up instead of down, yeah? It’s a pity nobody has ever thought to check if the outgoing radiation might be a touch higher than their models indicate, right?

  12. Kaboom says:

    Rivers and flooded areas have a rather short time buffering function for water between precipitation and the return of the water into the oceans. So over the course of a year, they are not even part of the equation anymore. A reduction in ocean level can only be explained by thermal contraction (lower ocean temperature), a sustained higher degree of humidity in the atmosphere (usually goes hand in hand with a higher air temperature) or the water is getting stored as snow and ice on a landmass.

    • Mike Davis says:

      Changes in sea level can probably be best explained by FUBAR Al-Gore-Rhythms used to Extrapolate information from what little real world observations they use!

  13. Karmakaze says:

    It’s pretty obvious that you are grasping at straws. You know it doesn’t sound right to you, but you can’t explain why not. So you simply throw out some half-baked accusation and hope no one notices.

    If there is more water in the air to fall as rain, then there is less water on the ground to cause sea level to rise. Once it does fall as rain, it takes days, week, even years to get back to the sea. First the rain has to trickle into the rivers, then the rivers have to flow to the sea.

    • Latitude says:

      That explains why lower Louisiana flooded 1 week after it rained in Ohio…….
      must have been from the drought the year before

      • suyts says:

        lol, yes, and will prolly take the flood waters in Louisiana those years karma was talking about to reach the oceans.

        Apparently, the rivers flooded after sucking all of that water from the seas.

        • Hey man, I just read a wikipedia article on the coast-line paradox and I realized that the water has to travel half the length of an infinitely long river to get to the sea! And then it has to travel half the remaining distance! And then . . .

        • Latitude says:

          karma, is a moron……
          Doesn’t realize there’s ~1/2 as much land as there is water.
          Every amount that the oceans go down, would add twice that much on top of the land….

          • Ivan says:

            …assuming that rain fell equally over all land areas…
            …and also assuming that no rain ever fell over oceans!

            Don’tcha just love “Climate Science”

    • Garry says:

      Yuh, right.

      It takes a veeerryyyy long time for water to flow from the Pakistan Indus into the Arabian Sea; or from the Mekong Delta into the South China Sea; or from the Mississippi Delta into the Gulf. Right.

      You need to watch some YouTube videos to see how fast those floods actually do move from the flood zone to the oceans. Hours and days, not months and just barely weeks.

  14. Mike Davis says:

    Living along one of the rivers that feeds the Tennessee river that feeds the Ohio just before it enters the Mississippi, I get a chance to watch the flood waters flow by. Yes the dams along the river restrict / slow the water to control flooding but over the course of weeks the water maintains its level and at about mid spring it is returning to average water levels for the year. Of course this is something new that was added to control flooding and permit transport of goods to Knoxville and the dam nearest me was competed like just yesterday in 1936. The other small lake that was man made to control flooding I am very familiar with is Lake Mead. If reservoir levels have anything to do with sea level then the sea level must have been at its lowest in the mid 1980s when they could not release water fast enough from Hoover Dam and what they did release caused flooding down stream.

  15. Curt says:

    If there is anything to this idea, it would have to be from increased amounts of water soaking into the land and possibly from increased impoundment in reservoirs. On impoundment, the additional water in Lake Powell over the last year caused a 0.01mm reduction in global sea levels!

  16. hell_is_like_newark says:

    playing devil’s advocate here:

    Wouldn’t increased rainfall eventually lead to the refilling of aquifers around the world? Therefor leading to more water being stored on (in) land, instead of flowing back to the sea..

  17. Billy Liar says:

    According to that stick by Lake Itasca (source of the Mississipi) it takes 3 months for the water there to get to the Gulf of Mexico. So that’s about the worst case scenario for a big long river.

  18. Latitude says:

    …..actually the water didn’t go anywhere

    They stopped adjusting Envisat up……..

    Envisat has been showing sea levels falling ever since the first day it hit orbit….
    …they have been adjusting it up

  19. Rick K says:

    Sea level is going down?

    Alright! Who pulled the plug??

  20. Scott Scarborough says:

    I calculate 5mm of ocean to be 1,800,000,000,000,000 cubic meters of water. One thousand times as much as you calculated Stark Dickflussig.

  21. Scott Scarborough says:

    Maybe it is only 10 times as much as you calculated.

Leave a Reply

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


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>