Visualizing Global Sea Level Fraud – Part 2

The University of Colorado shows sea level rising at a steady rate of 3.3 mm/year, which is a higher rate than 84% of tide gauges report

ScreenHunter_9168 May. 11 05.56

But they didn’t always show that. In 2004, they showed the rate of sea level rise as 2.8 mm/year

ScreenHunter_9162 May. 11 05.38


Overlaying the two graphs (of the same data sets) you can see that they don’t look anything like each other. In the old graph, there was a trough in 1997, and in the new graph there is a peak that year.

ScreenHunter_9169 May. 11 06.10

The next animation shows how their published data set has changed since 2004.


2004 : sl_ib_ns_cu2004_rel1.2_global.txt

2015 : 2015_rel2/sl_ns_global.txt

The next graph shows the changes made to the data. They added an extra 10 mm of sea level rise from 1993 to 2004.

ScreenHunter_9167 May. 11 05.53

As with every other US government funded climate data set, the data is continuously being altered to create the case for imaginary global warming. The temperature is not increasing, so they have to keep faking the data to keep the scam alive.

ScreenHunter_8930 May. 04 07.29

h/t to Steve Case

About stevengoddard

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

35 Responses to Visualizing Global Sea Level Fraud – Part 2

  1. Steve Case says:

    Thank you Steve (-:

    Yes, temperature isn’t the only climate data that’s being corrected on a continuing basis.

    • David A says:

      When exactly did this change happen? I think it was not until about 2006 or 2007. The reason is at about that time I recall a very flat trend, and a fair amount of chatter about it.
      I recall UC updates then stopping for some time, and then the new charts came out, erasing the flat trend shown here from about 2002 to 2006. This was before the IR adjustment, but I cannot find any charts of that time frame.

  2. emsnews says:

    Once you have to lie about one thing you have to lie about a million things and keeping track of these lies becomes harder and harder then it all collapses.

  3. Centinel2012 says:

    Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
    More deceit piled on past deceit making the worlds biggest compost pile — yet it goes on and on and no one cares that they are living in a pile of manure. This blog and a few others are the exception, of course.

  4. If a pharmaceutical company altered the results of a clinical study of a new drug to gain approval, everybody involved would be in jail and the media would be cheering the prosecutors.

    • Gail Combs says:

      I would not bet on that….

      Research Misconduct Identified by the US Food and Drug Administration: Out of Sight, Out of Mind, Out of the Peer-Reviewed Literature

      The USDA did the same thing with the big boys and e-coli Shielding the Giant – Government Accountability Project
      USDA’s “Don’t Look, Don’t Know” Policy

      OH, and the latest is Obummer is calling the Garland TX Jihadists ‘Lone Gunmen’ as the FBI is busy digging out the Jihadist’s network from the computers….

      I am really really getting sick of all the lies.

      Here is another:
      It’s Not the ‘Radical Shaykh’ It’s Islam – Fahad Qureshi

      If you go to the page

      The blurb under the utube is the biggest bunch of double talk I have ever seen in my life!!!

      Published on May 19, 2013

      When Muslim organizations invite Shaykhs who speak openly about the values of Islam, the Islamophobic western media starts murdering the character of that organization and the invited speaker. The question these Islamophobic journalists need to reflect upon is; are these so called ”radical” views that they criticize endorsed only by these few individuals being invited around the globe, or does the common Muslims believe in them. If the common Muslims believe in these values that means that more or less all Muslims are radical and that Islam is a radical religion. Since this is not the case, as Islam is a peaceful religion and so are the masses of common Muslims, these Shaykhs cannot be radical. Rather it is Islamophobia from the ignorant western media…..

      But how come this conference was the largest Islamic Scandinavian International event that has taken place in Norway with about 4000 people attending? Were the majority of those who attended in opposition to what the speakers were preaching? If so, how come they paid to enter?

      Let’s forget about that for a moment, let’s imagine that we don’t really knew what all these people thought about for example segregation of men and women, or stoning to death of those who commit adultery. The Chairman of Islam Net, Fahad Ullah Qureshi asked the audience, and the answer was clear. The attendees were common Sunni Muslims.

      They did not consider themselves as radicals or extremists. They believed that segregation was the right thing to do, both men and women agreed upon this. They even supported stoning or whatever punishment Islam or prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) commanded for adultery or any other crime. They even believed that these practises should be implemented around the world. Now what does that tell us? Either all Muslims and Islam is radical, or the media is Islamophobic and racist in their presentation of Islam. Islam is not radical, nor is Muslims in general radical. That means that the media is the reason for the hatred against Muslims, which is spreading among the non-Muslims in western countries.


      So much for moderate islam.

  5. SMS says:

    Once CU got involved in the CAGW meme it was just a matter of time before they felt compelled to keep up with the Jones’s. How do you keep up with the Jones’s in climate science? You “fudge”, “alter”, “cheat”, “massage”, “torture”, “obfuscate”, “muddy”, “muddle”, “blur”, and “cloud” the data. The data must not look like it did originally, it must conform to CAGW.

    What CU is doing is not science. What NOAA, and GISS are doing is not science. No where do you see the scientific method used. It only takes one good data point to disprove a theory. The CAGW theory would have died out decades ago is scientists had been true to the scientific method.

    Damn shame to see so much corruption and misuse of my taxes.

  6. inMAGICn says:

    Any published justification for these alterations? Do they have a built in algorithm or is this hand-and-eyeball work. What gives?

  7. darrylb says:


    What gives, well we do, mostly money, which leads to power, control, inflated egos and more.

    • inMAGICn says:

      darrylb. I’m with you 100%, but they can’t admit to that. What do they say that they use to publicly JUSTIFY these alterations?

      • Disillusioned says:

        With the Big Lie, justification isn’t as important as making the LIE ubiquitous (everywhere you turn), making sure it is repeated it over and over. And ad hom attacks against anyone who dares point out inconsistencies, lies, and/or unjustified claims. And shifting to other cherry-picked (and/or ‘adjusted’) scary ‘data’. Dealing with CAGW propaganda is like playing Whack-a-Mole.

  8. Steve Case says:

    Tide gauges show an annual rate of a little over 2 mm/yr over the last 30 yrs and an acceleration of about 0.2 mm/yr² over the last 60 years. If that were to continue, we would see 10 inches of sea level rise by 2100.

    The satellite record since 1992 shows a negative acceleration of minus -0.05 mm/yr².

    Anyone with an Excel spread and some time on their hands can figure these things out for themselves.

  9. An Inquirer says:

    Care to comment on this paradox? Some do not like satellite estimates of sea levels so they prefer surface measurements of tide gauges. Most of these same individuals do not like surface measurements of temperatures and prefer satellite estimates.

    By the way, I do have an answer . . . but it is best to be prepared for accusations on this paradox.

    • A C Osborn says:

      The answer is quite simple, we know where the “Quality Adjustments” have taken place, so we don’t beleive them.
      That is not to say they we disbelieve the RAW data though, especially thermometers.
      It is also strange how the Satellite showing a steep reduction in seal level rise was the only one that died, just call me paranoid.

    • Steve Case says:

      These time lines of data stand as their own testimony. You don’t have to call the people who run them names or make sarcastic comments.

    • daveburton says:

      An Inquirer asked, “Care to comment on this paradox? Some do not like satellite estimates of sea levels so they prefer surface measurements of tide gauges. Most of these same individuals do not like surface measurements of temperatures and prefer satellite estimates.”

      The short answer is that for sea-level the tide-gauge data is much better quality than the satellite data, and for temperature the satellite data is probably of better quality than the surface station data.

      Long answer:

      W/r/t sea-level:
      1. There is good reason to believe that global trends should affect all locations about the same, modulo differences in local land movement (subsidence or uplift).
      2. Most sources of local land movement, other than extraction of groundwater, oil and/or gas, and earthquakes (which are rare and well-documented), are approximately linear over century time scales, so they do not much affect/distort determinations of sea-level acceleration/deceleration.
      3. Thus, comprehensive coverage of the Earth’s oceans is unnecessary, if you’re trying to detect acceleration/deceleration in sea-level trends.
      4. Tide gauge data quality is excellent going back much more than a century, but satellite altimetry measurements only go back about 22 years.
      5. Measurement of sea-level by satellite altimetry is inherently unreliable, as Dr. Willie Soon explains starting at 17:37 in this very informative hour-long lecture, and measurements by different satellites have produced highly inconsistent data.
      6. Tide gauges measure sea-level at the coasts (where it matters). Satellites are incapable of measuring sea-level at the coasts.
      7. Upper-layer thermal expansion affects satellite measurements of sea-level but does not appreciably affect coastal sea-level (where it matters).
      8. Thus, tide-gauge measurements are clearly superior to satellite altimetry for determining global sea-level trends.

      W/r/t temperature:
      1. There’s no good reason to believe that surface air temperature trends should be the same everywhere, e.g., over the oceans (where there are no measurement stations) vs. land (where there are measurements stations).
      2. That means comprehensive global coverage is important for computing global average temperatures, and only satellites provide it.
      3. The global surface temperature record is spotty and of poor quality, being subject to very common distorting factors, such as UHI, measurement methodology changes, computational changes, etc.
      4. Thus, unless you need data which precedes the satellite record, satellites are probably superior to surface stations records for determining globally averaged temperature trends.

  10. Steve Case says:

    For example:

  11. AndyG55 says:

    What I think would be interesting is to see what sort of links there are between the “data adjusters”.
    We know that CRU and GISS, NOAA, NCDC are all pretty close, and there names, such as P. Stott that comes up quite often in CRU, BOM, CSIRO, and even the Kiwi temperature adjustments.
    So, are there any links between say Potsdam, Colorado uni, etc etc
    What might also be interesting would be to trace back grants and funding, see where it all leads.

  12. Steve Case says:

    I’m sure a lot of these guys all know each other.

  13. Another Ian says:



    I just heard ABC radio news (Australia) banging on about new CSIRO findings of the missing acceleration in sea level rise – which now fits the 1 metre of IPCC projections.

    I only heard part which didn’t have a reference.

  14. cheshirered says:

    Superb work Steve, and as ever another brilliant public expose by er, Steve. :-0

  15. ntesdorf says:

    As the Soviet Communists used to say, “Only the Future is certain, the Past is constantly changing”. Joseph Stalin would have admired this herd of “Climate Scientists” if he could have seen them in action.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s