More Boulder Smoking Guns

I live in the epicenter of climate fraud, surrounded by NCAR, NOAA, NSIDC and the University of Colorado – who showed in 2004 that sea level was rising 2.8 mm/year.



By 2015, they had bumped that up to 3.3 mm/year, even though their graph showed sea level rise had slowed after 2004.

sl_global (1)

2015_rel2: Global Mean Sea Level Time Series (seasonal signals retained) | CU Sea Level Research Group

I overlaid the two graphs at the same scale below, and you can see several interesting smoking guns. The first is obvious – they simply increased the rate of sea level rise from 1993 to 2004 . But the more interesting one is that the peaks no longer line up. In the earlier version, the 1998 peak came in 1998. Now it comes in 1997. This tells us that they are either completely incompetent or are simply making stuff up.


I can make the peaks line up by expanding the X-axis of the 2015 graph, but then the years don’t line up and the Jason data starts a year later in the 2015 graph than it does in the 2004 graph. It is apparent that these people are simply making data up as they go along, and not being very careful about it.


Carl Mears recently used satellite orbital decay as an excuse to bump up RSS temperatures (as if they hadn’t already corrected for that.) Orbital decay would be a huge problem for sea level readings, because they require sub-millimeter precision.

CU satellite data reports almost double the rate of sea level rise as NOAA tide gauges, and orbital decay would be a likely culprit for the discrepancy. But they won’t fix it, because it would hurt their funding if the did.




the absolute global sea level rise is believed to be 1.7-1.8 millimeters/year.

Sea Level Trends – Global Regional Trends

Adjustments are made to increase funding, not increase accuracy.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to More Boulder Smoking Guns

  1. Douglas Hoyt says:

    If they are correcting for orbital decay, they can’t use Newtonian physics – they need to use relativistic physics. I doubt that they do that.

    They could easily make a 1.5 inch error in the height of the orbit over 23 years, particularly if they use improper physics.

  2. etudiant says:

    Who pays my bread, his song I sing.
    Works in science same as in the arts.

  3. Sparks says:

    Oh sea level!
    It’s interesting how globally, it is actually irrelevant to anyone or anything.

    You know glass kinda melts over a long time, really old stain glass windows in place for hundreds of years have drops where the glass falls towards the centre of gravity.

  4. El Lobo says:

    Why limit your adjustments to just one axis? Global chronostatic adjustment?

  5. Peter Ellis says:

    The 2004 graph is clearly the inaccurate one. The yearly cycle is obvious, and the number of peaks in the 2004 graph doesn’t match the number of years on the x axis.

    • Peter Ellis says:

      If you go to the actual data file that corresponds to that graph, you get this:

      The graph in the PDF file is missing data near the end of the series, and has been stretched to fit, meaning that the gridlines on the X axis no longer line up correctly. The underlying data file has all the data, and it’s easy enough to re-plot the graph to confirm the display error in the PDF.

      • Peter Ellis says:

        Note that you can also work this out from the two images you started from, based on the colours of the different underlying datasets.

        In the 2004 file, there are eight peaks in the red (TOPEX) dataset, while in the later file, there are nine peaks in the TOPEX dataset.

        The TOPEX data is supposed to run from 1 December 1992 to 15 January 2002, i.e. just over 9 full years, so there should be 9 seasonal peaks in it.

        Graphing the data myself, it looks like when they made the figure for the PDF, they accidentally left out the last year of the TOPEX dataset. They corrected themselves in the uploaded .txt file containing the data, but forgot to correct the figure in the PDF.

    • tonyheller says:

      In the 2004 version, the Jason data begins a cycle earlier than in the 20015 version. How do you explain that?

      • Peter Ellis says:

        “Graphing the data myself, it looks like when they made the figure for the PDF, they accidentally left out the last year of the TOPEX dataset. They corrected themselves in the uploaded .txt file containing the data, but forgot to correct the figure in the PDF.”

  6. Steve Case says:

    Thanks Tony for bringing this one up again. Sea level is the biggest scare they have and pointing out that just like all other aspects of Global Warming/Climate Change it is corrected, modified nearly always resulting in an exaggeration of the upward trend.

    Here’s my two year old graph on the topic:

  7. bubblers says:

    Great Statistics, I really enjoyed this!

Leave a Reply

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