Sea level fraud by the Colorado Sea Level Research Group
The dishonesty of climate scientists: A comparison of the raw data with the published adjusted sea level data reveals unexplained “adjustments” made by the Colorado Sea Level Research Group at the University of Colorado that increase the reported rate of sea level rise without any explanation.
In 2004, the rate of sea level rise for the 1990s was measured at 2.8 mm per year (margin of error 0.4 mm). Somehow, in 2015 that same data for the 1990s now shows the rate to be 3.3 mm per year, adjusted upward 0.5 mm per year, an amount greater than the margin of error noted in 2004. There is no justifiable reason that I can see for these adjustments, and if there is, they have not provided it.
Be sure you click on the link and look at the graphs. They are quite damning.
Note also that when I began my effort to unravel the climate change field back in 2004, I spent a lot of time reading older literature describing then what was known about sea level rise. These earlier published papers from the late 1990s, generally agreed that the rate of sea level rise for the past century had averaged around 2 mm per year. When I started looking at the modern data in 2004, however, the accepted rate was 2.8 mm, but I could find no explanation for why the consensus had upped the number from 2 mm. Nor did any published work explain how the previously published sea level data from before 1990 had somehow changed to this higher number.
They have now upped the rate again to 3.3 mm per year, but have once again provided no explanation as to why. The adjustments themselves are very suspicious, since they all go in one direction. Either they are allowing their biases to color their judgment, or they are committing outright fraud for the sake of selling the idea of global warming.
Either way, this is not science. Until they provide a good explanation for the adjustments, their funding should be stopped, now.
One more thought: Even at higher 3.3 mm per year, the total sea level rise for the next century will be a whopping one foot, hardly something to panic about.
Readers!
Please consider supporting my work here at Behind the Black. Your support allows me the freedom and ability to analyze objectively the ongoing renaissance in space, as well as the cultural changes -- for good or ill -- that are happening across America. Fourteen years ago I wrote that SLS and Orion were a bad ideas, a waste of money, would be years behind schedule, and better replaced by commercial private enterprise. Only now does it appear that Washington might finally recognize this reality.
In 2020 when the world panicked over COVID I wrote that the panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Only in the past year have some of our so-called experts in the health field have begun to recognize these facts.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are four ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation or subscription:
4. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above.
The dishonesty of climate scientists: A comparison of the raw data with the published adjusted sea level data reveals unexplained “adjustments” made by the Colorado Sea Level Research Group at the University of Colorado that increase the reported rate of sea level rise without any explanation.
In 2004, the rate of sea level rise for the 1990s was measured at 2.8 mm per year (margin of error 0.4 mm). Somehow, in 2015 that same data for the 1990s now shows the rate to be 3.3 mm per year, adjusted upward 0.5 mm per year, an amount greater than the margin of error noted in 2004. There is no justifiable reason that I can see for these adjustments, and if there is, they have not provided it.
Be sure you click on the link and look at the graphs. They are quite damning.
Note also that when I began my effort to unravel the climate change field back in 2004, I spent a lot of time reading older literature describing then what was known about sea level rise. These earlier published papers from the late 1990s, generally agreed that the rate of sea level rise for the past century had averaged around 2 mm per year. When I started looking at the modern data in 2004, however, the accepted rate was 2.8 mm, but I could find no explanation for why the consensus had upped the number from 2 mm. Nor did any published work explain how the previously published sea level data from before 1990 had somehow changed to this higher number.
They have now upped the rate again to 3.3 mm per year, but have once again provided no explanation as to why. The adjustments themselves are very suspicious, since they all go in one direction. Either they are allowing their biases to color their judgment, or they are committing outright fraud for the sake of selling the idea of global warming.
Either way, this is not science. Until they provide a good explanation for the adjustments, their funding should be stopped, now.
One more thought: Even at higher 3.3 mm per year, the total sea level rise for the next century will be a whopping one foot, hardly something to panic about.
Readers!
Please consider supporting my work here at Behind the Black. Your support allows me the freedom and ability to analyze objectively the ongoing renaissance in space, as well as the cultural changes -- for good or ill -- that are happening across America. Fourteen years ago I wrote that SLS and Orion were a bad ideas, a waste of money, would be years behind schedule, and better replaced by commercial private enterprise. Only now does it appear that Washington might finally recognize this reality.
In 2020 when the world panicked over COVID I wrote that the panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Only in the past year have some of our so-called experts in the health field have begun to recognize these facts.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are four ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation or subscription:
4. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above.
This is what you get when you measure sea level from a mile high and two thousand miles from the sea, maybe they should think about moving a little closer?
(high IQ sarcasm alert)
I would be more worried about the sea levels dropping.
They would only drop for two reasons. Both very bad.
One the glaciers are rebuilding and we are starting that ice age we are due for. Buy a new winter coat and expect less rainfall.
Our oceans are being stolen by aliens at a rate noticeable by man. All hail our new overlords.
We have all heard of “social justice”, now we have “climate justice”.
http://www.wnd.com/2015/11/u-n-tribunal-to-judge-u-s-for-climate-debt/
It is reasonable for us to consider the possibility that a fraud is being perpetrated upon us.
1) Explaining data and the differences between the data taken and the data used is basic science; more basic than Science 101, it is middle school science. It is the first thing taught about data reporting in the first science class in which a student is required to collect data. Thus for the Colorado Sea Level Research Group at the University of Colorado to ignore the data discrepancy is a violation of basic science.
2) They should have noticed the discrepancy in the data between their own reports. It is their business, after all. Both graphs list TOPEX satellite data as their source for the 1993 to 2002 portions of the plots, but it is obvious by inspection that the data points are different between the two reports. First, the 60-day smoothed lines are greatly different. Second, differences between the data points on the two graphs are clearly different near the 1998 mark and the 2001 mark, where high level readings are not as high or are fewer in number. Even the Jason-1 data can be seen as different near the 2003 mark, demonstrating that the Jason-1 datasets are also suspect. One or more of each satellite’s dataset is not the original data.
The 2015 report should explain or reference an explanation as to why these datasets are different from their prior report(s). If this is not done, they are either poor scientists or could be suspect of intentionally hiding something. This does not seem to be on their FAQ list: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/faq or their links page: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/weblinks or even the AVISO page (the TOPEX data-source site) http://www.aviso.altimetry.fr/en/data/products/ocean-indicators-products/actualitesindicateurs-des-oceansniveau-moyen-des-mersindexhtml.html It looks like it is AVISO that has made the adjustments without explanation, but the University of Colorado does not seem to have noticed or does not seem to care.
3) The University of Colorado changed their data-presentation method between the two years, using different colors. This is suspicious. Not only does it make noticing the discrepancy harder, it obfuscates everything about the data. To make matters worse, the more recent map has a narrower range (-10 to +10mm) than the 2014 map (-15 to +15mm), and the 2014 map shows a few locations that exceed +12mm, which is well beyond the range in the reportedly worse situation of the 2015 map.
4) It is obvious that the satellite datasets are being tampered with, and it is further obvious that the University of Colorado is drawing conclusions based upon their altered datasets without discussing these alterations and how they might affect the accuracy of their conclusions. The faking of data (changing without notice or explanation) is the very definition of fudged data: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fudging “v.tr.1. To fake or falsify: fudge casualty figures”
5) If we cannot trust the satellite data, then what can we trust in the science of climatology? It seems that it is not only NOAA but foreign science organizations are also modifying their data without announcement or explanation – two violations of established methods of science. Put together, these appear to be actions of fudging data, and it appears that the University of Colorado is comfortable using such apparently fudged data.
Edward,
Your research and writing in this post is so good it should be a post on the main page. If I wasn’t in Mexico on a semi-vacation I think I’d want to put it there, with your permission. If you say yes, I will see if I can make it happen.
Thank you for the compliment. You have my permission.
Time is my problem right now. Between sightseeing and writing about what I see, I might not be able to do it. I will try however, if I can get the time.