Shock News : Satellite Sea Level Error Is Almost 100% Of The Trend

The University of Colorado used to have this error map on their sea level web site, which showed that most of their fake 3 mm/year sea level rise is due to error.

The url for this map was

Here is their current sea level map. Note that their data is severely skewed by a region north of Australia, where their error is almost as great as their claimed trend.

ScreenHunter_1387 Oct. 11 10.33

Map of Sea Level Trends | CU Sea Level Research Group

The global satellite sea level graphs claiming 3 mm/year are complete bullshit, and would be thrown out of any engineering project.  But this is government science and the government needs some basis to claim that sea level rise rates have increased.


About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Shock News : Satellite Sea Level Error Is Almost 100% Of The Trend

  1. Robertv says:

    The more we dig the more bullshit we find and we don’t need to dig deep. God knows the cancer we find digging deeper.

  2. Billy Liar says:

    Top image ‘No IB’.

    A 1mbar error in their modelled instantaneous surface pressure at the time of the satellite pass leads to a 10mm error in the imagined sea surface altitude.

    Good luck in reducing errors due to the inverse barometer effect on the ocean.

  3. Billy Liar says:

    … at least with a tide gage you can have a co-located pressure sensor so that you have a continuous and accurate record of the IB correction needed.

  4. Reblogged this on Power To The People and commented:
    More proof that the Leftists in government (who claim to be on the side of the little guy) are using junk science and data to impoverish and kill poor people which is morally indefensible.

  5. cosmoscon says:

    Now I’m curious! What is the error (+/- mm) for sea level using satellites?

    • Jim Reekes says:

      Yes – what is the margin of error? I’m not finding it. What is/was “IB correction”? How are we comparing a 2005 data set with one from 2013? I don’t doubt anything this article is claiming…I just want to understand the facts leading to this conclusion (and use this in the discussions I often have).

  6. tom0mason says:

    In the paper TIDE GAUGE LOCATION AND THE MEASUREMENT OF GLOBAL SEA LEVEL RISE the authors indicate that sea level rises are around 1mm/year but 65% of all tidal gauges show no increase. Their study was of “individual tide gauge data on sea levels from the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) during 1807 – 2010 without recourse to data
    reconstruction. “

  7. They’d lose their jobs if they admit that sea levels have been rising at 2 mm since the 1850’s and have not changed, it would prove that global warming started 100 years before CO2 started to rise and totally disprove the whole thing. But that’s already been shown by the 600,000 years of Vostok data which shows that warming always happens before CO2 rise, just like it did in the 1800s / 1900s. Therefore, CO2 does not cause any warming at all. Warming causes CO2 rise. All the extra CO2 in the air today came out of the oceans. Plop plop fizz fizz.

  8. Søren Bundgaard Pedersen says:

    Five or More Failed Experiments in Measuring Global Sea Level Change. Willie Soon, Ph.D.

  9. bw says:

    Willie Soon has stated that raw data from satellite altimetry shows zero sel level rise.
    Then the data is “processed” by being “calibrated” to the surface tidal gages.
    Errors in the satellite data are about 1 mm per year according to the latest NOAA analysis.
    That 2012 report finds global sea level rise of about 1 mm per year. Link is

  10. Steve Case says:

    Yeah, it’s real interesting. If you check the data as it appeared in 2004, courtesy of the internet WayBackMachine,
    you will find, using Excel’s slope function, that the rate of sea level rise was 2.6 mm/yr.

    And if you check that same span of data 1992.9595 to 2003.8459 today
    you will find that it has increased to 3.5 mm/yr. A manufactured increase of nearly a millimeter per year in the rate of sea level rise.

    How ’bout that?

  11. timspence10 says:

    The problem with measuring sea level, is that it can’t really be measured, that’s why they go to great lengths to say ‘estimate’ in the very first paragraph of the Colorado seal levels page.

    The estimates are a mesh of adjustments, combined with tidal guage measurement (presumed to lift and fall with the tectonics at the same rate as the tide) and some more data from satellite measurements. The earth surface can lift and compress at the equator by almost a metre with the passing of the Moon.

    Smoothing is done over 60 days to even out lunar influence, because water moves around.

    So the only other way of measuring sea level is by satellite simulataneously over 70% of the earth’s surface at exactly the same second. This would be nice if the sea was flat and did not have waves, waves that typically can vary from 1.8m to 4.5m on the same day on the coast of Spain. It’s untenable to claim an accuracy of 3mm.

    The also add on, cumulatively, 0.03mm per year as isostatic rebound, and one or two other little adjustments.

    So the ‘data’ is a mix of estimates and we all know how data and estimates mix from past experience.

    No signs of any ‘data’ blip from the 2004 Tsunami either, nor from the Japanes Tsunami.

    The Earth isn’t exactly round either, far from it, I’ve no idea how the instrumentation and data resolve these issues and there are lots of similar issues that do not seem to be part of their paltry list of parameters, Oh dear.

  12. The color coded sea level rate of change GIS graphic are remarkable. As I read the corrected data map, Fig. 2 [btw scientific publications require all figures to be numbered and captioned] the sea level rate of change is much less than +3mm/year. Probably close to zero mm/year. More explanation of these data plots is needed. The source of the error in the erroneous data in Fig. 1 should have been explained by the good folks at U of Colorado, and or, the author of this blog post. How was the error introduced into the analysis? Instrumental error? Bug in analysis code? or just plain old fudging the date to get what someone wants? Is local sea level a well defined measurable quantity? Clearly one does some sort of time averaging and correction for systematic errors. Seems rather difficult concept to nail down quantitatively.

    Other factors include: the volume capacity of the Earth’s ocean basin is not a constant. Sea floors do the tectonic dance, fill with effluvia, sink because of off-shore oil extraction (just kidding.)

    Qualitatively, beach goers know about the high tide levels and high water marks on sea cliffs.

    Like climate change, sea level change is inevitable. People have the responsibility to adjust and adapt to such inevitable changes.

  13. jB says:

    Is it just me, or is the scale radically different? As in fig 1 range is 0 to +12 whereas fig 2 is -15 to +15. As in “oh wow, it’s all green now (hair on fire)!” Um yeah, well everything left of center is irrelevant including that familiar calming blue color. If you want to show a positive change, nothing better than having a scale with an equal range of negative value…

  14. frolly says:

    Doug Lord, a coastal engineer here in NSW made the career-ending mistake of measuring the sea levels and then trying to publish a paper on the 0.9mm/yr rise he actually found. He was fired, and his paper pulled by the government just before publication.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s