New Video : Lies, Damned Lies, And NASA Sea Level Graphs

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to New Video : Lies, Damned Lies, And NASA Sea Level Graphs

  1. Jazon says:

    Hi. Wondering if you have archive link to the 1935 article “will melting glaciers engulf world?” Tried to search and came to a pay to play site.

  2. Crispin in Waterloo says:

    Excellent, and topical.

  3. John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia says:

    Another great video, Tony.

  4. Michael Spencer says:

    Once again Tony: you keep coming up with nasty facts! That will never do! Facts will upset soooo many budgets that rely on ‘research grants’, to say nothing of the political agenda behind the climate scare.

    No! You can’t say the things you’re saying! Just think of the financial welfare of all those ‘scientific’ computer modellers ……

    • Disillusioned says:

      Bingo and BOOM!

      Thank you Tony. You continue to shred every anti-science notion climate alarmists posit as settled science. They built their house on shifting sand.

      Disillusionment is a good thing!

  5. Noel says:

    As we say in Britian you hit it for six this time Tony ,or as the colonials might say you hit it out of the Ball park. That’s why they never challenge you they would be exposed and all credibility would evaporate. It’s a simple undeniable fact water finds its own level.

  6. Al Shelton says:

    Thanks again Tony..
    I hope that Dr. Happer has is using your data for his review on AGW.

  7. Billyjack says:

    FYI. I spent time in Finland and the locals who owned sea front homes were complaining about increased property taxes because of their lots gaining area due to the land rising from the rebound of the last ice age.

  8. Denis Rushworth says:

    You said you could not find a tide gauge showing accelerating sea level rise. Go to Manila harbor on PSMSL and you will see the relative sea level was nearly flat until about 1960 when it began rising at a rate of about 10 or 12 mm/year. Fragmentary GPS data associated with the tide gauge suggests that Manila harbor is not only sinking, but also moving rapidly to the northwest. Go also to “other data” and to the GPS elevation gauge identified as “PIMO” in Quezon city, about 12,543 meters (~8 miles) away from Manila harbor. It goes back to 1999 and the data terminates in 2014. It shows that at least during that interval, Quezon City rose at a rate of about 25 mm/yr and moved northwest at about the same velocity. There is nothing I can find as to why the Quezon City GPS gauge terminates in 2014. Perhaps a see-no-evil principle?

    It seems Manila harbor is on the lowering end of a sliding geologic teeter totter. There is I have no information as to whether such phenomena are common in The Philippines but I do know that this part of the world in very geologically active. Perhaps you have sources that could flesh out this observation. In the meantime, do not buy a house in Manila.

    • Gator says:

      From your own description, Manila harbor does not show accelerated sea level rise, but shows subsidence. So it appears Tony is still correct.

      • rah says:

        Yep and one can find the same thing closer to home in the Chesapeake Bay where the reasons for the subsidence are not so obvious.
        There is also another possible reason for changing sea levels at a give location that Tony does not mention. Concentrations of mass in the mantle of the earth are slowly but constantly changing. Higher mass means higher sea level. Lower mass means lower sea level. I have always loved this video explanation of what exactly sea level is.

  9. Denis Rushworth says:

    Manila shows rapid relative sea level rise beginning about 1960 due to sinking. Sorry if I didn’t make that clear. The relative sea level rise in the Norfolk Virginia area of the Chesapeake and in New Orleans are likely also due largely to sinking caused, some claim, pumping fresh water from beneath. The rate of sinking of these cities is very much slower than seen in Manila and neither show any sudden knee. Also, near Norfolk and New Orleans there are no rapid land-level rises nearby – no teeter totter that I can see. It seems to me that Manila is a unique case although a thorough search of PSMSL and the associated GPS information may reveal others.

  10. JPinBalt says:

    Here is some data:
    Select tidal station or get list.

    NOAA’s 2016 list of 375 stations.
    Showing an average acceleration of +0.0524 (and median acceleration of +0.0175 and thus negative scewness which would be expected to happen if you trucated off the low negative acceleration end of the distribution).
    The mean +/- 95% confidence interval on the means listed is 0.1209, which offset would mean you cannot reject the null that acceleration is zero, but that is meaningless, and you would have to download data and look at individual stations and do CI tests.

    NOAA’s list of 16 stations dropped in 2012.
    Showing an average acceleration of -0.0417 and median acceloration of -0.0049.
    I guess it is just another big coincidence that the dropped tidal guage stations have negative acceleration on average.

    But some stations included in the 375 list should be dropped for obvious flaws combing data sets. Look at Kodiak AK where sea level is falling since mid 70s consistent with land rising at other stations that part of earth, but get a +11.92 mm/year significant rise adding in a flat earlier data set 1949-1964.

    Also some data problem with Gibara, Cuba reporting +2.45 mm/year
    But +12.46 from the 345 station 2016 list.

    Something smells fishy, and it is not the tidal gauges, but the number crunching.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.